will change everything. i think a lot of young people like you will be able to say, you know, i always kind of wanted to teach school for a year or two but i cannot do it for life. i have $50,000 in loans. it is totally irrelevant now. it will be capped as a percentage of your income. you might say, i will go teach on a native american reservations or add an inner- city school for a couple of years to see what it is like in the maybe i will go into business. you will be able to afford to do it because he will not be bankrupted by your own loan repayment obligations. you all remember that when you are going through this. [applause] >> my name is brittany king. i am a graduate student from houston, texas. [applause] >> from houston, texas? >> yes.

i am also a mother and survivor of brutal domestic abuse. i know when you came under earlier you said we in this room are overachievers. because of my past have not always been that way. my first semester of college i failed out with everything else was facing. last night its sentiments a college's universal but talent is universal but opportunity is not. how'd we optimize the talent of those who do not have the same opportunity, somebody like me who has had to fight hard to be standing today with everything i have had to save. how do we make that something real question marks this is an excellent opportunity that i saw out. school did not tell me. i went looking. how do we make that something that is real? >> stand up. [applause] >> how did you get through it and how did you become a good student? did somebody help you?

was that somebody back in your home? was it somebody on your college campus? how did you get to where you are? >> i think because my daughter was so dependent on me as a single mother. looking into her face knowing we will make it. had she not been there, i may not be standing today. i think i always had an unwavering determination. i recognize that everybody may not have that character trait. when i wake up and i see i still have the air to take breath, i say i have a purpose on this earth. i know there are those who might feel there is no purpose. hope seems to elude them. i will say i have had -- i have had people who have come alongside me and encouraged me and told me to keep pushing. those were people i saw out. -- sought out. some people who saw my determination and resilience who helped me. for those who may not have that

drive or motivation or a child saying, what are we going to eat tonight, what do we do for those people? >> that is a great question. [applause] there has been an extraordinary amount of publicity given to the problem of abuse of children, both physical and sexual abuse in the past several months. not only the well known case at penn state but a major league baseball player has just written his memoirs about his own experience. the senator from massachusetts, scott brown, wrote a memoir about his own spirits. -- his own experience. calledre's foundation is safe at home because he was

brutalized as a child until he got big enough to stop it. i think one of the things you can do -- all of you can do is to try to get the people who work with this to establish some kind of beachhead on every campus so people would have somebody who could get them over this. one of the things you have to do is get to the point where you either put it in a box somewhere or forgive somebody or go rein them out or what ever so they do not hold you prisoner anymore. your daughter basically -- is it your daughter or son? because you had to carry out her, you did not have the option -- care about her, you did not have the option of being a prisoner of your past.

your daughter sets you free. with people who do not have children, they have to have something else that will set them free. i will tell you an interesting story. the day nelson mandela was released from prison and early 1991. i got chelsea out of bed. she was somewhat younger than she is now. i sat her up on the kitchen counter and i told on the tip -- i turned on the television and i said, they are letting nelson mandela out of prison today. this might be the most important thing you ever see in terms of a political event. he walks down this dusty road, this dramatic gesture. he gets into a car. he drives out to freedom. before you know it, he is

president. when mandela and i became friends, i said, you are a great man but you are also a canny politician. it was smart to invite your jailers to the politician. -- inauguration. it was essential to invite the party to put you in prison to be part of the government. tell me the truth. i told him about getting chelsea up to watch him. i said when you were watching -- walking down that road, did you not pay their debts again? -- hate their guts again? he said, of course i did. i was full of hatred and fear. i had not been free and so long. i realized if i hated them after i got in that car and got through that gate, i would still be their prisoner. [applause]

he smiled and said, i wanted to be free. i let it go. he looked at me and said, so should you. so should everybody. in all these cases of childhood abuse, it is so caught up with things that are wrong, what should not happen to people, with the power of relationships are. it is so hard to let it go. there are people who do this all of the time. on every continent. think about what it is like in africa for all the children who are turned into soldiers. they have miraculously made something of their lives. it is the cruelest of all kinds of child abuse, but in the end it is about a longer being a prisoner to it. you have to give people the strength of mind to look forward

instead of backwards. your daughter set you free. [applause] >> let me see if i can get somebody from up in the back. >> hello. i am an undergraduate at the university of pittsburgh. we have been talking a lot about how wonderful it is we are all getting off of our butts and committing ourselves to these events and we hold babies in africa and we sped off numbers about how well development has helped these countries. what about the negative impact of foreign aid? we have not heard a thing about that all weekend. >> she is talking about the negative impact. i think she is talking about people being sick of bono. are there any negative impacts

to foreign aid? >> there can be negative impacts. there can be negative impact of development. if foreign aid is not held accountable it can reinforce the status quo in a country and reinforce the amount of money for corruption. secondly, foreign aid can be a project the donor fills the country needs that the country has not bought into. in that case, it will be wasted money as soon as the money runs out, the project will vanish and will not have any lasting impact. foreign aid can be harmful if a country sees that less than half the money appropriated is being spent in the country on the people because the developed

countries -- ngos are getting cut off the top. there are lots of problems with foreign aid. i spend a lot of time trying to help improve its impact. obviously, i have a conflict with the united states now. i do not do that. i tried to help improve the impact of american foreign aid by seeing that a higher percentage of it is spent in the country on the people it was intended to reach. if we had a simple requirement like the health-care law that 85% of all the money that you pay and health care goes to your health care and said a profit for promotion, if 85% was all appropriated by every country had to be spent in the country was assigned to help in a way that was transparent, accountable, and honest, that

would dramatically increase the impact of whatever dollars are appropriated by parliaments and congress around the world. let me also say that there can be corruption and private development, too. that is the well-known resorts course. why do so many countries with oils, minerals wind up with average people pour and the economy polluted, because they pay off people who want to be paid off. they do not reinvest money into the country. one of the most rewarding things i do is work with canadian mining countries to pump money into funds in bolivia and peru to reinvest some of their profits into the areas where mining occurs to diversify the economy and strengthen society so when the mines play out the people are better off. every country in the world with mining or oil wells could have their money spent -- there is a

reason why the income is twice that in any other despite it is smaller. in botswana. they put 100% of the money into a trance parent trust. the money goes into a trust. -- transparent trust. the money goes into a trust. you know you can follow the money to see if it is in the trust. is spent to benefit the people and diversify the economy. that is all transparent. that could be the biggest boon to africa and normal ordinary people would see their incomes rise. i go to nigeria once a year. we mostly just have climate change projects in nigeria. i go there once a year to a major press event where a nigerian press brings in all the people from different sections of the economy and bring some people like me to tell them that they should be honest and transparent because

it would work better and point out how it is working in other places because if nigeria works, south africa works, and you can avoid the worst of what is going on in the condo and give them a -- congo and give them a responsible path forward. the rest would have magnets that would develop more rapid and positive growth. there are problems with private development, they both need to be addressed in a way that benefits real people in the countries affected. >> right there in the baseball cap. >> i am putting a lot at risk for speaking right now. i have to bring up an issue i feel need to be addressed. during your presidency you sign significant legislation such as don't ask don't tell and the defense of marriage act.

there is obviously a focus on alleviating poverty and making commitments to sustainability, education, health, and development. i identified as being a minority because of my association with the -- they have made -- with the lgbt community. they have made considerable differences both in america and across the world. they are still most at risk for teen suicides. what can we do to secure treatment for all americans? when will this country finally ruled that separate is unequal when it comes to the social institution of marriage? i will not ask my future leader -- partner to domestic partnership me. i refuse to be treated as a second-class citizen. [applause]

[cheers and applause] >> the answer to the gay marriage question is this. this supreme court is not even sure you should have to have health insurance. they are not about to say that you have a constitutional right to be married. they will say it is a matter of state law. but i think we are making progress there. my answer on the marriage issue is, i have changed my position and a lot of other people have. we got it in your. -- in new york. you have to keep working and you will get there. since you brought it up, i t why -- thank you for doing it. i am always curious at house -- how selective elected people's memories are.

lgbt community must wonder how i maintain support in the communities and so did those two things. here is why. i did not sign do not ask don't tell until both houses of congress had voted by a veto- proof majority for a resolution saying if i kept trying to put gays in the military, they would go back to making it a crime. colin powell came to me and said, if you accept this, you are beat on this other thing. if you accept this, here is how we will enforce it. no gay person will be asked about his sexual orientation. getting the materials, going to gay bars out of uniforms, marching in gay pride parades out of the uniform, and none of that will be used to kick somebody out of the military. we will leave this alone if you

agree to this. rather than go back to what happened, i agree to do it. what happened? the minute i left a broke every single commitment they made to me. the reason i supported it in the first place was partly because and the first gulf war, the military allowed more than 100 gay members of the service to put their lives at risk in the 1991 knowing they were gay, waited until they put their lives at risk, waited until the war was over and kicked them out. it is true, i did it. if you understood what my options were, i am not sure i did the wrong thing. on the doma bill, the whole purpose was to keep the congress from voting out a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the u.s. constitution.

if it got to the states it would almost certainly back then have secured the votes of three-quarters of the state legislatures and the country. it was a total calculation based on the odds -- we may have been wrong, but most of the leaders of the gay community believe that if we did not go along with that, the republican congress would put a gay marriage ban amendment to the federal constitution. they would get the votes in the house and the senate and they would send it to the states. i may have been wrong, but i think under the circumstances as we believed it would happen it was worth it. since then there has been steady, long the progress toward recognizing gay marriage. which i support. [applause] >> i am from california, which

revisited when you were in office. my city is about 140,000 people, and we last year were the sixth highest city per capita in homicide rates in the entire country. we have the highest incarceration rate per county in california of locking up youth under the age of 18. my question to you is how do be as students and youths who are trying to break down some of these barriers in trying to reduce the use recidivism rate and the incarceration rate, how do we break down some of the barriers that we confront with establishments like our local judges, our local district attorneys? >> let me ask you something. why do you think the

incarceration rate is so high? why do you think the crime rate is so high? why do you think it happens? >> i think it is a two part answer. one is because our lack of resources and our educational system in our area. the other is because our local district attorney has -- i will drop the hammer and three u. -- threw away the key -- mentality. >> what percentage involves drugs or guns? >> it is a very minimal amount. a lot of the times our youth is getting incarcerated because of what some people call crimes of passage. maybe sometimes under age drinking, smoking marijuana -- which is kind of like a life passage kind of crime. [laughter]

>> let me ask you a question. would you consider "dark side of the moon" by pink floyd a life passage crime. >> i have no idea what that is. [applause] >> i am so old. >> i am guessing that was something in the 1960's. >> yes. >> let me ask you a question. in my second term, we had a drop in not just the crime rate, but we really went after juvenile offenses and try to keep people out of prison. one thing that we did was to appropriate enough money for after-school programs for 1.5

million young people. i gather a lot of them have been cut now under all these financial constraints that california has been under. i believe that we have to go back to turning the schools into community centers, leave them open every night and on the weekends. offer real support to kids. we also started something in philadelphia that eventually had half of a million kids in called "gear up." we would tell people in middle school they could go to college. we would tell them, you can go to college and here are with your benefits will be. we promise you right now if you do these things in school and follow this path. i think you have to figure out

-- most people do not want to fail. most people want to succeed. first they do not think they will be able to so they do dumb things. they do not know how to. i do not think there is a magic elixir here. i think you have to go child by child and figure out if they each need a mentor of some kind. then we need to put them on a path for the future by the time they are 13. they're probably not that many in detention under 13. i think somehow they have to be able to choose their schools over the street. i do not care how we find the money, we have to find a way to go back and find a way to turn the schools into community centers.

let me give you one example. andre agassi, the famous tennis player, started a school at las vegas. he put it in the poorest neighborhood in las vegas, one of the poorest and all of nevada. it was the first school in the entire county to receive an excellent rating from the state. they are open all the time, every night and every weekend. all of the parents, whether they are two parent or single working moms are invited to come into the schools. they give all of them computer training. they give the mailing with the teachers. they give the kids something to do at night and on the weekend. the school recognizes that the families are under enormous assault economic and otherwise. these kids are in trouble. they also start early preparing them either to move into a training program where they can

get a decent job or go on to college. it has made a huge difference. andre agassi is not one of these celebrities that has to have a charity so you can check the box and somebody else run said. -- runs it. he runs that school. he has people who do that, but he is heavily involved in it and the lives of the kids. it is stunning what happened once they went after every one of these kids one by one by one. they went after their families one by one. they made them all feel they had a home in the school and they were committed to their success. somehow we have to recreate that for everybody. when we leave here the basketball games are on tonight. [laughter] i want to say this because it

relates. you have what maybe a fascinating game between kentucky and louisville. louisville has all of these kids -- there is no way in the world should be in the final four. they have a great point guard. they did not expect to be there. the coach said an interesting thing that might relate to celinas. he said how did you do this? these kids had no business being in the final four. he said, everybody who plays this game wants to succeed. some do not believe they can. first everybody has to believe they can. then it turns out the one to succeed for different reasons. some want to make their mother's proud. some want to make their parents proud. someone to show their dad they

are still good. some want to do it for teammates. people want to succeed for different reasons. you have to convince everybody that the only way you can succeed in your own terms is if you are part of a team that is doing something bigger and better than you are. it was really smart -- somehow, all of these kids getting in trouble, they drift off. most of them are not bad kids. it is connected. -- they get disconnected. they think life is a dead end anyway. we have to bring them back in. i have no better idea than what i have seen work in las vegas and several other places. you have to make the school the governing community institutions. when the economy picks up again, that is the first in congress ought to think about doing. you can give all the tests in the world and do this other stuff, but kids have to believe they can succeed.

they want to believe they can succeed. they have to be given away to do it. their families have to be given a space to support them. i think putting everyone in jail -- there are too many people in jail in this country in my opinion. [applause] >> we have been given the all clear sign. that is all the time that we have. i wanted to very briefly state what an honor it has been to be here. [applause] you know a lot of things. it is always a pleasure to hear you speak. i rarely have been in a room where i felt like i would like to work for each and every one of you. you are a pretty incredible group of individuals. i wish to the greatest success and all the commitments you have been working on. i want to thank president clinton. >> see you tomorrow morning. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> please enjoy the reception and dinner this evening. good night.

>> later, we will bring you live coverage of the press conference at the white house. they are here in washington for a meeting for the leaders of

north-american countries. >> also, a live discussion of what it is like for news correspondents to cover foreign wars and conflicts. it is hosted by the american society of news editors. we will have it live starting at 3:45 eastern. we will have more from canadian prime minister steven harper. he will discuss the political relationships, energy, the environment, and national security. that is live from washington on c-span2. that starts at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> we ask students to create a video telling us what part of the constitution was most important to them and why. today we're going to california to talk with the third prize winner. she is an 11th-grader at walnut high-school. why did you choose to focus on

the 26th amendment for your documentary? >> we wanted to pick an amendment that directly related to youth. we decided to go with the youth the amendment. we wanted something to empower people who do not exercise the right to vote to get out to the polls this year. we wanted to empower youth to use the right to vote when it is granted to them. >> you interview the mayor. what did you learn from him? >> he is the mayor of lahabra. he is also a professor of political science. he had a lot to teach us about the actual amendment and the fact that youth do not know enough yet to make well-in for political decisions. youth

empowering themselves through education. we interviewed andrew rodriguez who is studying political science at rutgers university. we could use a youth perspective to get the message across. he was well versed. he knew how to relate to the viewers. it was almost youth speaking to youth. using a college student like andrew was great. another student was politically involved. she is active with youth on a daily basis. metknnoticed when she different people, she understood the power they could have to vote and the fact they need to

be educated to do this. they had the message we wanted to convey in the documentary. >> what did you learn about the impact young voters can have on elections? >> we learned a lot about how close elections have been in the past and how integral youth are to the elections. there turnout is increasing each year. we wanted to get the message across that one vote could make ultimately. >> what is the most important understanding you can take away from this experience? >> when making anything, the power of collective effort is enormous. we have not worked together before. we have to work as one cohesive unit. three people can create a well- put together a project. it was amazing.

it was a positive attitude and dedication. with that, anybody can create a documentary. >> here is a brief portion of avika's documentary. >> i think educating youth about political issues is incredibly important. i see the intelligence, drive, and passion may have. their willingness and initiative to make a difference in the world. by being educated about what is going on in the political scene, they can find new ways to engage in the country and progress it to be better in future years. there are two great equalizers in life. education and the internet. combining both is the way to go in educating today's body of u.s. voters -- youth voters.

people have the capacity to go online to access resources. that will be the best way to impact the most people and largest number. >> you can see this video and all the winning documentary's studentcam.org and continued the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> the competition asked students what part of the constitution was important to them and why. the third prize winners selected the 26 the amendment. >> hi. >> hi. >> hi. >> i am will roberts. >> i am becky.

>> i voted. >> i voted. >> i voted. >> i voted. >> i voted. >> and i voted. >> youth were granted the right to vote in 1971. this was a response to the argument that an 18-year-old was old enough to serve and perhaps die in vietnam and ought to be old enough to have his or her voice heard. >> they were in the military service in being sent off to fight in the war.

somebody without the right to elect a leadership that dropped them there. they felt it was unfair to be put into the military service and put their lives on the line and not be able to elect the president was going to be their commander in chief. the 26th amendment was very important at that time. >> the amendment is really important to me. it shows youth have a voice and matter. elected officials had to direct their campaign to people in the workforce or retired and how things impact social security or medicaid. a lot of times, the importance of youth is overlooked. there the next generation of leaders. they will be taking over the jobs and leading the country in the future. >> i just graduated high school.

i am going to college. i think this amendment allows me to express my beliefs and what is best for my interests as a college student. a lot of my peers know lot more about what is going on in the country than the people in the news media. some say an 18-year-old should not be able to vote because they vote with their heart and not their mind. >> other candidates have noticed the younger voters do not vote until there are efforts to tap into that potential pool of voters. we see a lot of different efforts like rock the vote or other efforts to appeal to young

people to get them to cast their votes. >> the voting age changed. the impacted presidential elections and the involvement of youth. the 2008 election was the first time they saw such a large movement around a campaign and candidate. youth are looking for more ways to engage. >> in 2008, it had increased just two percentage points. there has been a trend of towards greater involvement. >> we have seen turnout go up. the percentages increased. the percolation -- population has also increased. this is the largest group of young people and our country has seen -- that our country has

seen. >> we need to do a better job of teaching students our history and why our government is the way it is. >> i definitely think educating youth about political issues is incredibly important. when i interact with them, i see the potential, the drive, passion they have. their willingness and an initiative to make a difference in the world. by being educated about what is going on in the political scene, they can find new ways to engage with the country and progress it to be better in future years. i think there are to have great equalizers in life. education and the internet. -- i think. two great equalizers in life. education and the internet. combining those are the way to go to educate young voters. the need to be more campaigns around using education and the

internet. people have the capacity to go online to access resources. that will be the best way to impact the most people and educate the largest number. >> i want to always give examples that your vote does count. it is going to be tough for one person to change the outcome of a presidential election, but after a local school board races or smaller local races, one vote really can make a difference. i try to teach people that. do not think your vote does not count. it absolutely does. >> nobody gets to write your destiny but you. your future is in your hands. your life is what you make of it. nothing is beyond your reach so long as you are willing to dream

big, work hard, and stayed focused on your education. there is not a single thing any of you cannot accomplish, not a single thing. >> youth are the future of america. greater understanding will empower each of us to play an active role in shaping the course of our future. the 26 amendment granted youth the representation they deserve. now it is us to utilize the wide array of resources and opportunities available to us. just one young person testing one vote on one measure in congress is enough to drive legislation that will directly impact the issues we care about. we are the future of america. our vote, our voice matters. >> i care. >> i care. >> are care region i care -- i

care. >> i care. >> go online to watch all the winning videos. continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. tonight it is book tv. "liberation square" examines the egyptian revolution and the future of the country. then "the invisible. ." > the devil we don't know"

covers the dark side of revolutions in the middle east. we will bring you coverage of the press conference at the white house. they are in washington for a meeting of leaders of north american countries. it gets underway in about half an hour. we will have that live for you on c-span. until then, a discussion on duplication of programs in the federal government. >> this is the 2012 annual report. it says opportunities to reduce duplication and fragmentation. what does that mean?

guest: the government has involved with many programs. we have looked at parts of the government to see where we have programs addressing the same objectives and goals and seeing whether or not we really need all these programs. is there a better way of delivering services? host: there could be one department the program and the same program and others. guest: there may be 10 agencies providing some type of service in an area. there are differences. duplication is hard to identify. that means everything is identical. you are serving the same people, same objective, delivering the same service. oftentimes you will find programs may be delivering the same service but to different people.

with fragmentation, an individual might be looking for housing assistance in terms of trying to get their entire array of services they have to go to three agencies to get that assistance. host: how did the report come about? guest: will report annually on potential opportunities of duplication in the federal government. it was part of the debt legislation where the federal debt was raised about a year- and-a-half ago. in raising the debt limit, congress was looking at ways to save money to positively affect our financial situation. they charged gao with looking at the entire federal government for potential duplication and identifying areas of savings. we issued the first report about a year ago.

this is our second report that we issued at the end of february, along with a status report on the issues we identified last year and what happened to them. host: last year, there were several programs. where are we this year in terms of the reduction or consolidation? guest: we identified 81 issues. about 2/3 were related to overlap and duplication and fragmentation. we also identified another 30 or so that were potential areas of cost savings or revenue enhancement. only four of the 81 had been fully addressed. the bulkhead had partial action on them. there were 17 had not had any action. host: is there an estimate of what costs to keep similar programs running? guest: we have not given a total estimate.

y withnot fully identif is duplicative or how you could structure to be more efficient. we do know it is in the tens of billions of dollars. host: our guest is with us to talk about the findings in answer your questions about these programs. here is how you can talk to her. you can e-mail us or ask a question via twitter. are there departments that have these programs that stick out more than the rest? guest: we looked across the entire government. we found issues in defense and civilian areas. i cannot think of one department where there was not at least one issue.

host: i will list some and you can talk about them. one was in the area of electronic warfare. that is the multiple efforts when it comes to airborne attack programs. guest: that affects communication systems. in the defense department, the requirements for the systems are service-driven. the air force wants a system. the navy wants a system. they have driven the requirements for the individual systems as opposed to looking at it from a common structure and adapting to unique requirements. as a result, we were spending billions of dollars developing multiple systems. we may only need one common platform with adaptations. host: it sounds simplistic, but can they talk to each other about what they're doing?

guest: they do talk to each other and there is some coordination, but a lot more can be done. they need to think commonality first as opposed to having a need and developing a system. host: unmanned aircraft, drones? guest: the entire system, the same situation. there needs identified on the battlefield. systems were developed. these platforms are very similar. looking at commonalities, develop a common system, and then address unique requirements. host: the third category is listed as stabilization efforts. it mentions the police department and international development. guest: the callers may be

familiar with the situation in iraq and afghanistan. we're developing new civilian systems and structures. normally that would go through the state department and usaid. there was money also given to the defense department to help with these efforts. we have got multiple agencies developing multiple projects and not having information as to who is doing what. it has gotten better. we do need to have better sharing of information. we also need to start thinking about transitions. as we pull out of the countries, and how do you move to a normal process through the state department? host: let's go to a couple of calls for pat dalton.

delano, democrats line, go ahead. caller: what will they do with the money they supposedly are going to save in getting rid of the redundancy programs? you have a lot of people talking about saving money here and there. what are they going to do with that money? if you are going to take the money from that and put it towards something else that will be redundant, what good is this doing? how do you keep that money you are gaining from going into somewhere else that is redundant? guest: the biggest control over not creating more redundancy is our current financial situation.

our debts are increasing. they're looking to constrain federal resources and spending. where we can save money in one area, it can be used for deficit reduction and to meet the needs that are already in the budget. host: the programs that close or are consolidated, what happens to the people and structure? guest: when you look at the programs, is there a way to save administrative costs? is there a way to deliver a system -- services in a less costly way? host: rick, independent line. caller: i am 54. in 1970, there were 100 lobbyists in washington. i think it was $400 million. there are 50,000 lobbyists in washington now.

they might be throwing $300 billion around. when i was growing up, taxes were 90% for corporations. we had a securities and exchange commission in place to protect us. she is talking about military. 40 years ago, we put about $1.5 trillion into infrastructure. today we are close to that going into the 800 military bases around the world. there are 100,000 military contractors in the united states. the point is, how can you be talking about a general accountability office when we

have $6 trillion sitting overseas? ibm is sitting on $50 billion. host: how much do contractors play into the discussion? guest: some areas we have identified our contractors and how we can use them better. one area we look that was in the energy department. much of the work the energy department does with the nuclear weapons complex as well as with the national labs are contracted out. we found we have numerous contractors in support services. is there a better way to deliver those services? by support services, i mean in human capital management, financial management.

we have a wide variety of ways to deliver those services. is there a way to do that on a more centralized basis that will be less costly, more efficient, and more efficient? host: is a granting program overall in the government? are several agencies handing out money to do similar things? guest: yes, we do. an example from last year's report where we look at water infrastructure, there were four or five agencies providing grants. they are not working together. there were instances where we put in infrastructure that could

not be used because the connections were not there. there needs to be a better way to do that. we're looking more broadly at how we are distributing those grants. caller: good morning. thank you for everything you do that the government accountability office. in contrast to the other offices in washington like the national endowment for the arts and the national education department, you guys actually do important work. i think this report highlights why washington and the federal government are such a bad place for these programs to exist. you are really spending someone else's money. the taxpayer is nameless and faceless in all this. you lose track of accountability because of all the bureaucracy. each state only has fractional

representation. it ends up being a giant problem that no one is directly accountable for because there's never really a referendum on the policies when it comes to elections. do you think -- what role does politics play? second of all, are there any efforts right now to localize the issues in the bigger apartments and move them to the state level? do you do investigating on the state level to find duplications between federal and state programs? guest: on the duplication between federal and state programs, we have not specifically looked at that issue. we have our hands full with the federal government. i think it merits looking at what kinds of services are being delivered and looking at it from

the individual receiving those services. in terms of how we would move forward, these are difficult issues. they evolved over time. with the financial constraints the federal government is under a as well as state and local governments, it is worth taking a hard look at the programs. one thing that will be really important that we found repeatedly is the need for good information on what is working and what is not working. in many cases, we are finding is we did not have good performance information. that makes it very difficult to make good decisions. host: here it is. i do not know how many pages guest: little over 300 pages. host: how many people do you look at?

guest: the government accountability is office, we are the investigative arm of congress, so we look at all of them. in delivering this report and providing that analysis, all of our teams that are involved, we have about 3000 people working for gao. they were not all working on this report, but we to from their expertise to bring this together. host: and in terms of analysis, vivian shepard and asks him how much can be saved if all of the ideas can be put into effect? guest: we do not summarize it because there are a lot of policy decisions that need to be made. we cannot get down to actual numbers decisions that need to be made in terms of what we want to achieve and what the best way is to achieve it and how we would want to deliver those services. guest: another program that you took a look at was health, when

you took a look at programs that were redundant. expand on the research funding. guest: research, primarily we do, institute of health, which you would expect. but also, we do research funding through the administration and the department of defense. the main issue there is knowing what we are giving grants for. their systems do not talk to each other, so if people are deciding whether or not an agency is going to give a grant, they do not know whether -- nih does not know whether dod is given a grant or whether the v.a. is given a grant. there has been somewhat better sharing of inflation once the grants are given, but what we do not -- sharing of information with the grants are given, but we do not have a submission process, for that.

the accord nation to in the department of defense and the veterans administration has improved. we have a lot of programs to help our wounded warriors, but we did find instances where there is overlap and duplication. we were told of one instance where a wounded warrior had five different case managers. there are other instances where case managers are giving conflicting advice, are more than one is working on the same issue. host: 4 wayne, indiana -- if you want to finish your thought. guest: it does not make sense to have multiple people working on the same issue. host: gerry, go ahead. caller: i would like to know -- isn't the root of this procesprm congress?

guest: these programs were created with good intentions. problems are identified and creating a program was a solution to the particular problem. it was easier to create a program than to look to see whether or not there was another way to see if a service could be delivered. there has been probably plenty of blame to be shared here. i think the issue really is, now we've got this situation, how do we fix it? host: from missouri, joe, independent line. caller: there was a report that in two years, the interest on our $16 trillion is going to equal what we have to pay annually on our medicaid and social security. is that true?

and the other thing is, can we find are exactly how much money comes in from all of our natural resources, like the mines, the oil, the agriculture and all of that? i do not think we have any -- enough income on any of our natural resources that are being wasted. guest: in terms of the money and what we are spending it on, i do not have the exact numbers, but we do projections looking out to the future. i can tell you that the discretionary spending will become a much smaller percentage looking at federal expenses. the bulk of federal spending is on service to the debt as well as health care costs. host: when you interview folks to find out the information, do they say things like, this is a case where one person is not talking to the other and we should do a better job?

who has the onus to consolidate these programs or make them more efficient? guest: that is definitely one of the problems. it is important rebel leadership for the people that -- where a coordinated approach can occur, or at least have a partnership so that two agencies are taking the lead and saying we are going to make this work. host: matt from ohio -- from ohio, marguerite. margaret, are you there? florida.to joe on the democrat's line. caller: i've been watching the program and i'm wondering about the fraud in the medicare/medicaid and health insurance programs that we have and that we have to buy. they could start a lotto to fund stuff like this, but not to

have the lotto in a general fund, but just for health- insurance and the v.a. and all of the insurance programs, medicare, medicaid. guest: i do not know about a lot to go, but what i would say is -- about a lot obama -- a lotto, but i would say that a lot of the waste is inaccurate payment, in direct payment. -- incorrect payment. there are a number of systems that the government is trying to put in. one of the things we found in terms of potential cost savings is that those that would detect the improper payments earlier as opposed to later have been very slow to be implemented moving forward more aggressively would

make a dent in those improper payments. , host: are there areas in the federal government that turn it around when it comes to redundant programs? guest: i cannot really, point to anyone in particular at this point. host: when it comes to social services, two areas that are highlighted in the report was -- one was, how social security benefits were dealt with and the other was housing assistance. when it came to social security benefits, you specifically listed the overlap in payments. what does that mean? guest: in this case, we were talking about potentially 0 plopping payments between social security and work rents -- overlapping payments between social security and worker's compensation payments. oftentimes, those programs are through the state governments or private insurers. there is a series of rules as to when you are entitled to social security and not.

better information in that case would ensure the accuracy of payments. in terms of housing assistance, we found numerous programs. there were more than 60 various housing programs. we did find areas where we were delivering of opera in much the identical service, but potentially to some different populations. i think that is opera ... an instance dovecote loan programs over time. it was -- the department of agriculture was originally targeted toward rural

communities. now that our country has developed, the rural and the urban often are overlapping. we find areas that have been identified as rural and are getting services through the federal housing administration. the question is, do we need both of those programs? can we serve those same people through a single program and save the administrative cost? host: how would that be true housing and urban development primarily? guest: probably. the performance information and the cost information indicated it would be housing and urban development. host: but through other agencies that have these programs similar guest: exactly. the agriculture department did have one, but as i said, the country has evolved. the population shift has occurred. the way we provide loans and

loan servicing in this electronic age, you often do not see it. the need to see a person handle, it electronically. it is a good example of what may be what was a need 50 years ago. it may no longer be an individual need, but could be handled through a different program. host: we have put up a link on our c-span website if you want to read this report directly. how many pages? , guest: it is over 300 pages, but we have set it up so it can be searched, fairly easily. you can look at it by topics of interest. host: we have linked it for you at our site. our guest is here to discuss what her organization has found. california, calling on the independent line. caller: i have already looked up the gao report and on page 294, according to the report, the fraud or improper payments for medicare or medicaid was $65

billion in fiscal year 2011. siong i found out about the report not, at the same -- by found out about the report of the same time that my representative was having a town hall meeting and his staff was looking at the report. this is a big number. before we go after the small stuff, and this is what we should be going after. host: give us your thoughts and impressions as far as what the scope of these types of programs mean to our federal government? caller: probably about $200 billion a year to the federal government. and i think in some of our congress and legislators going after the small stuff, they should look at the big stuff.

they should go ahead and look at it themselves and call their representatives and so we can get the new waste and fraud and abuse out of the government before we start cutting senior citizens if social security checks. host: thank you for your time. any response? guest: i'm very happy to hear that the report has been read and used. i would certainly agree that the larger dollar amounts are areas to be focused on. but i would say where there is smaller stuff, it may be easier to fix, so we should not neglect that. the small things can have up. host: this report, what is done with it? guest: we report every year. we will be reporting on what is happening as we did last year. there have been a number of congressional hearings on the report. and what we have seen is that the administration has proposed

a number of actions to consolidate programs or to eliminate programs, as well as congress has considered some various reauthorization of programs. the we are seeing some movement for consolidation. but there is a lot more that needs to be done. the situation evolved over time. they are difficult issues. it is not going to be an easy fix. there is a lot of work that needs to be done to sort out what the best way is to .tructure these services hos the host: as is the republican line, russell from walton, maryland. caller, hello? let's try fresno, california. caller: i am a retired federal employee, but i was listening to

your conversation about how the federal government is using the -- you know, where you are pulling money from one government agency to the other, and they are overlapping each other. a lot of times that happens because, like you said, one agency does not know what the other one is doing. but if you work with the employees and managers, you have one of those big, powerful meetings where you know where these programs are coming from before you contract things out to another agency for help or assistance. they need to work together so that they all can be on the same page. and also, like the lady had mentioned with medicare and medicaid, you have all of this extra money where they have overpaid one area to another.

you need to do it? charge and ordaz -- do a back charge and they take things back -- i will not say that they were misusing them, but it was overlapping the group that the money should have come from. that way, congress can do the budget to allow the mdot so much money. -- to allow them so much money. they will not get that amount because of the extra expense that they should not have been paying a to begin with. host: thank you. guest: i think there are some good ideas there. one thing i would say in terms of coordination, i do see more information being shared. i think that is one of the things that these reports have helped with. they have highlighted areas where information needs to be shared and that is happening more. also, in terms of more, not just

meetings and people coordinating, but sharing information. people are being more aware and there is a need to share information earlier as a opposed to later. host: is that because you have it in black-and-white, that these departments get put on notice, look, you have this and it could go away just as easily. guest: yes, and one of the things that has happened that was guidance -- there was iesdance to all of the agency' and they needed to share the information for this report to build the budget. host: use of a drop in the number from one year to the next. -- you saw a drop in the number for one year to the next. is that the expectation for next year? guest: it requires us to look at

the entire government. that is quite the charge. we are not able to do them all in one year. we are trying to do this on a three-year cycle. the first year, we relied on a lot of our prior work. there was some new work that resulted in the 8150 issue. this year, we're working through, issues that the government has not assessed yet, assessing those areas for predict -- for potential overlap and fragmentation. host: next caller. caller: good morning. last year, the back in black report in oklahoma was issued. he had a press conference when he issued their report. and during that press conference

he mentioned the fact that based on the government's information on two programs, ssdi and ssi, that is, the supplemental security income and social secure the disability. he made the point that 40% of the people who run the systems are cheating and gaming the system. based on his numbers, he claimed that one out of every 19 americans, that is man woman and child -- man, woman, and child, cazares and shalik disabled, based on the number of people collecting on these -- are considered disabled, based on the number of collecting on these systems. it is obvious abuse. i would like to know what is being done about it. guest: i do not know about those specific numbers that senator kroeber unquoted. i do know the work that we have done, but it is important to

have good information as you are making those decisions as to whether not to grant a person the disability benefits, or the supplemental income benefits. that means bringing data together so that you know whether or not you are entitled to those benefits. host: larry from georgia, democrats line. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to make it, and then ask a question. the social security trust fund has gone about $2.6 trillion on the balance sheet. that seems to be quite a thorn in the side for some politicians of the whole social security program. i was wondering if the social security trust fund could be -- they could cash goes in and sell

those bonds. of course, the money is on loan to the government. i was wondering if they could loan that govern -- about money .o somebody else hal it seems like it would take upon some of the politics -- take some of the politics of the program. guest: that money is intended to pay benefits into the future. the projections are that -- you know, how long that money can be used to pay benefits, we basically need the money for the social security benefits that we are committing to paying out in the future. host: because you look at these programs, is there a standard that is applied to them to measure efficiency? the some of these kdot whether a program -- does somebody say whether a program is effective?

guest: we should be looking to see if they are effective or not. there is a law that requires performance information call the government performance act, which was just amended in the past year to modernize the act. each agency is required to identify measures to determine the effectiveness. the act -- the amendments to the act did a couple of things that i think will help in this situation. one, it required that the office of management and budget inventory the federal program. which requires them to define what a program is. we do not have a definition of a program. >host: as far as the federal programs for mothers and as a definition? in guest: no, it is mind- boggling. one of the things they did was to define a a "program" and do an inventory and make it available to the public.

it is on our website. the other thing the act did was required each administration to identify priority goals that would cut across agencies. there is greater emphasis on coordination and information about how programs and agencies work together. that, i think, will help in terms of identifying what is effective and was not, what is efficient and what is not. i remember from last year's report we were looking at domestic food assistance. we identified 18 programs. only seven of them have any kind of measures of effectiveness. the other 11, you just did not know. they might be varied good programs, but you did not know -- a very good programs, but you don't know which was effective or not. host: we are out of time. if you want to look at this

report, it is linked at our website. thank you for your time. .com guest: thank you. >> and you can see "washington journal" live every morning here on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. sure they will go to the white house garden for a joint news conference. president obama has been meeting with canadian prime minister stephen harper and mexican president, felipe calderon. a bit later start than expected. they were expected at 1:15 p.m. we will have it live when it gets under way shortly here on c-span. right now, your phone calls from today's "washington journal" on more schooling from -- for disadvantaged youths.

>> again, waiting for the start of a joint news conference in the white house garden. prime minister stephen harper and president felipe calderon were meeting with president obama. we will have that live here on c-span shortly. >> to give them a step up.

let's go to a call. st. louis, missouri, a key ally on our "other" line. d. ahead spiri caller: i think there was a time in american history when people used to not go to college and not go to its high school and they were fine. james garfield, never went to college. many great presidents never went to college. we may be a bit more industrially advanced , but

the way we do things in high school is fine. i do not think it is necessary to have an extra year. whether you are a wealthy kid or a poor kid from a middle-class family. we have to demand that the parents know more about what is going on in their son's education and demand that more kids have personal and responsibility. host: that was st. louis, missouri. let go to wilmington, delaware. caller: good morning. my answer would be, there is definitely a better way. let's try sending the privileged kids into it the injured -- into the inner city schools for a year and see if that does not change their parents' minds. we have a charter school fight going on and delaware and it seems like they want what with all -- they want what they want and what more for their kid and they do not think about anybody else. we need to change the system

entirely. some kids get books and some kids do not. some kids can eat in the morning before they come to school and some kids cannot. asking someone else to go a year because their parent is working four jobs and they cannot go to pta meetings is ridiculous. host: of the system has to be changed, where do you start? caller: i say all of those people with degrees to think they are educating our kids and know what the system should be, start with the kids. those bowl with the degrees have the money and the time that other parents do not have. you've got to do it. get on their doorstep. given their lives. show that you care. host: here is a, an offer of twitter this morning.

a couple more thoughts from kingston this morning about offering kids an extra year of education to prepare them for college. he suggested a couple different models. when he calls the academy model.

a few more calls. dayton, ohio. you are a teacher? caller: i may high school teacher in one of the urban schools. let me give you an example. the valedictorian of our school last year, had to take a remedial math and remedial writing. and talking about development of courses like english 095 or madoff of 095 that do not even count toward his degree. i think he should get his degree. if your -- you are taking development of courses, they should not pay. it is owed to them. are you talking marketing them in their disadvantaged school for an extra year? that would do no good.

host: it would give them an extra year of education in order to prepare them for college. he suggests several models probiotic texter jürgen azko is part of that. -- these suggest several models. an extra year of high school as part of that. caller: we have the highest kids in our school getting 1700 on their bases. -- 17 on their act. they should be getting in the 30's. host: is there a way as a teacher to better prepare them for college? caller: we are trying. we are working regard. we are staying after school and college prep test. we are trying as hard as we can to get the kids engaged, to get those kids who have the potential. all dot we are working really hard. there is a whole lot of stuff that comes along with working in

the cities where you have concentrated on employment, concentrated, -- concentrated drama. the things going on in the family. at a local four-year college, they worked really hard in the last 10 years recruiting dayton public schools. now they have their local four- year university has a 50% of graduation rates. and i know who that 50 percent is that is not graduating, and it is probably our students. host: we have a line for parents if you wish to take advantage of that. and we have a line for others as well. next, samuel. caller: i have a problem and with keeping somebody in school, if the school is bad. why keep them there for an extra year?

i think the school system needs to be fixed, really. there are laws protecting people from not going across county lines to go to better schools. why don't we set laws that would change the schools and make them better? the only way you can make change is to make them better. host: detroit news has a different take on looking at education, particularly with high school students and what we are talking about as far as the high school day. this is a school in dearborn offering students a chance to start later in the school day.

if you want to read more, there is more available to you at the detroit news. this is in regard kingston to my baltimore native, but now the president of cornell college in iowa. he makes the premise or the argument that disadvantaged students given an extra year of schooling could help them as they prepare for college. if amsterdam, new york, up next on our teachers line.

caller: my view is there is a practical matter here also. it is important to prepare for college. we have students in poverty, and from a difficult homes. in many places, teachers and school districts are judged, measured by how many of their students graduate in four years. one of the things we have to think about is a change in our idea of what high school this and what a successful high school is. there are a lot of students who do a lot in five years. but schools are penalized if those students do not graduate in four years. it is a culture shift. host: from a teacher's point of view, is there anyone willing to take on the idea of changing how

school is operated? caller: i think there are a lot of models out there, but nationally, from my experience, but nationally, to get kids through in four years is what schools are held accountable for. host: those higher education -- the higher education bear responsibility for better preparing them for that? caller: the goal is to give our students either college or career ready. without including the stake holders at a higher level, we will not get them there. host: since from the "washington

post" this morning. alexandria, va., good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a parent and i have to say i disagree with an extra year for a student at disadvantaged school districts. i do not understand why they would want to keep students in a school that is not performing already and give them another bad year of the same stuff. there is a reason the schools are not performing, and you would think they would try to get to the bottom of the reason

the school is not performing. what do you do with the students that are performing? do they get paid extra year -- get an extra year in this industry? this is flawed. we need to improve what we pay our teachers and what the students can get out of the school. instead of giving them an extra year in school and the same district. host: out of those ideas of helping students without the extra year of school, what do you think is the most effective? from the parent's point of view. caller: for may -- for my son, i have to say that he is not going to be the most brilliant child in the school. he struggles academically, but there are programs that have helped him at the school. teachers the, meet with him once a week.

there are academic activities to help him in the areas that his weekend -- that would help ireto. get the parents involved. i've got to figure out why my son is not performing and i've got to meet with the teacher and figure out how to work with the teacher. the parent and teacher have to work together. host: here is a little more from the top of this morning from brizard kingston. he looks at different models in terms of helping schools prepar.

annapolis, md., this is dan, a teacher. caller: i have taught before the u.s. naval academy and a couple of universities in philadelphia, and i'm currently teaching at the john hopkins university. heidi dedic for your school is a fantastic idea. i think is important the way it is done. -- i think an extra your school is a fantastic idea. i think it is important, the way it is done. and i will tell you the way i would implement it, and what i did with my son. often the sixth grade he was doing rather poorly in school

and he needed another year of maturity. when i moved in from one school to another in the sixth grade, i had him do it over again, so he did it with a different group of peers. rather than making it an extra year of high school with appears that he already knew, when he shifted schools, and by the time he got to high school, he already had done an extra year. it gave him an extra year of maturity. in my son's case, it made a tremendous difference in his academics and maturity and he went on to go to the naval academy mdot became a navy seal. -- on and became a navy seal. some kids need that extra year for maturity. how host: did your son horizontal all about? caller: initially, there might have been some resistance, but he developed new friends and had a new set of teachers and then responded very well. by the time he got to high school he was more mature and

almost a year older than a lot of those students around him. but the maturity made the difference in being able to perform in high school. host: is yours the only example that you can cite, or have you met -- have your of others taking the approach you have taken caller: i have not heard of anyone else doing that, but the idea of keeping kids in the same high school for another year is a bad idea in terms of the peer relationship. if you can do it sooner than that and let them get that year of maturity to earlier, i think is a much better approach. host: we will continue on with calls about this, but first a look at visa a "washington post" business section when it comes to -- a look at the "washington post" business section when it comes to lobbying groups. enda,is a list of cdo's an estimation of how much they make.

and others on the list as well, not only who they are, but how much they make. again, from the "washington post" this morning. back to the discussion about education and hard to hold students prepare for college. maryland, ann, colo. caller: i think getting kids more involved at an early age in their school system to know what resources are out there is important. unfortunately, there is not a lot of that is sent home for information for mothers and

fathers who might need help early on. our school area has a wonderful program. we have a lot of mentors and parents who come and work with of students and teachers at an early age. kids who need more help in certain areas are getting the help they need at an early age, so they can catch up much more quickly, and so that there does not have to be an extra year of school. we also have college students who are eventually going to be teachers come to our schools and help students at a very early age catch-up. i think the community has to get more involved with the education of their community. host: would you say there is an increase in the numbers of students who are trying to "catch up" as you put it? caller: absolutely. in our particular school district, there are some areas of massachusetts where there is

more a problem. funding needs to be for the schools that need more help. but i do feel that as a community, we need to help the teachers. the teachers have students with different language barriers, learning difficulties, and very large i cannot see how one teacher -- and very large classrooms. i cannot see how one teacher can teach all of these students and deal with the of your problems. we cannot expect them to do everything. -- deal with behavioral problems. we cannot expect them to do everything. host: next caller,, good morning, tina. caller: i want to address the caller that talked about holding his child back in high school.

my son was held back in the third grade. it has not affected him as far as his peers go. having said that, i believe that if we stop the standard by testing and the no child left behind, all that is doing is leaving our children behind because kids, test beverley. also, i believe they need to put more vocational programs in the schools. and when i went to school, they add standardized tests, but it was not a pass or fail thing. it was to determine your strengths and weaknesses. if you are mechanically inclined, you could take vocational courses from there. host: what do you think of this notion that has been suggested about an extra year to help prepare randazzo 8 may be

disadvantaged students that has -- prepare a navy disadvantaged students that wants to go to college. caller: i think it was maybe an apprentice type of thing, that would help. but it will diminish their psyche to just be there an extra year. host: that was in a calling on the line that we set aside for -- calling in. there is a conference tomorrow on technology and power is used. there is an article that talks about tv viewing habits.

park falls, wisconsin, sharon, hello. caller: good morning. thecalling to say that school system has to be changed. maybe in the last two years, some are going to be doctors, lawyers, and some are going to be technicians. and i think if we gear our educational system to that -- because not everyone is a college candidates. i think if they would do that, they'd be much farther ahead in preparing a child for going out into the world and getting a job that meets his interest and where he is really going to learn. i also think they should focus on english and math, but also cater to what the child is

interested in. also, i've noticed as a mentor and a tutor that some teachers after so many years of teaching have lost interest in teaching. they say that if he does not know mouth by the ninth grade, he is never going to learn it, not going to not bother teaching it. he can use his car gator purify -- his calculator. host: are you looking at how those students are getting ready, for college? caller: i do not think there is anything -- there is probably more focus on children going to college down there is too technical colleges. that is what the future is, technology. a lot of college graduates cannot even get jobs, so they are taking jobs in a hamburger

joints and whatever. it is a well-known thing. technology is always changing and always up in the anti-. i think that kids need to get that education early -- >> and now live to the white house rose garden for the press conference with prime minister stephen harper mdot president felipe calderon. >> good afternoon, everybody. and welcome to our trade partners, president calderon and prime minister harper. i have worked with steve and aunt felipe on many occasions. we joined -- steven and felipe on many occasions. from our last summit in guadalajara, where we had, the hospitality of the mexican

people. we had some tequila, if i'm not mistaken. i cannot reciprocate the music, but steven and i are proud to welcome you here today. between us, we represent nearly half a billion citizens from the canadian north to said -- southern mexico. and between the diversity of our peoples and cultures is extraordinary. but wherever they live, they wake up every day with similar hopes, to provide for their families to be saved in their communities, to give their children a better life. and in each of our countries, the daily lives of our citizens are shaped per family by what happens with the other two. today, we focus on our highest priority, creating jobs and opportunity for our people. in the united states, our businesses have created nearly 4

million new jobs. confidence is up and the economy is getting stronger. but with lots of folks still struggling to find work and pay the bills, we are doing everything we can to speed up the recovery, and that includes boosting trade with our two largest economic partners. as the president might made it a priority to increase our exports ... i have made it a priority to increase our exports. in fact, last year, trade in goods with our two neighbors surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever. this trade support some 2.5 million american jobs. and i want more trade supporting even more jobs in the future. today, prime minister harbor led us in a very good discussion about how our three countries can improve our competitiveness. we agreed to make our borders more efficient and more secure, so it is faster and cheaper to travel and trade. we are expanding cooperation to

create a clean energy jobs and to combat climate change, an area in which president of iran -- president calderon in mexico has been a leader. our three nations are launching an effort to get rid of outdated that stifle job creation. here in the u.s., our efforts to cut red tape and insurers mark regulations will ensure savings.net benefits to businesses and consumers to the tune of $100 billion. we are already working on a bilateral basis, so our three nations will sit down together, go through the books, and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economy's strong our. this is especially important, by the way, for our small and medium-sized businesses. when they start exporting, they often start with mexico and canada. it will help create jobs and keep us on track of doubling

u.s. exports. we're also working on a comprehensive immigration reform, which will be good for workers and businesses. i'm pleased to announce we are joined the trans-pacific partnership. consultations with our partners are under way on our new members can meet the standards of this trade agreement, which can be a model for the world. and i very much appreciated president calderon of getting us on preparations for the next g- 20 summitt, which we he will be hosting in june. -- he will be hosting in june. criminal gangs and norco traffickers pose a threat to each of our nations. in mexico, president of iran has shown great courage in standing up to the traffickers -- president calderon has shown great courage in standing up to the traffickers.

here in the u.s., we have increased cooperation on our southern border, and dedicated new resources to reducing the southbound flow of money and guns, and to reduce the demand for drugs in the u.s., which helps john fuel, this crisis. -- helps to fuel this crisis. beyond our borders, cartels and truckers oppose a threat to our central american neighbors. we are teaming upon. we will be coordinating our efforts more closely than ever, especially when it comes to supporting central america's new strategy on cent -- on citizen security, which will be discussed next week. again, i want to thank steven and fully paid for being here. in -- and fully paifelipe for b.

we have built a relationship of mutual respect. it would not be possible without the cooperation of these leaders. as a result, our nation and citizens will be more secure and more prosperous and in a better position to give their children the lives they deserve. with that, let me turn it over to president calderon. >> thank you, president obama. [speaking spanish] >> ladies and gentlemen of the press, ambassadors, legislators, friends, first of all, i would

like to thank president barack obama for his extraordinary hospitality and that of his government's in hosting this summit of the leaders of north america. i would also like to express on behalf of the government of mexico, the people of mexico, my behalf, my most sincere sympathies to the family and relatives of former president ordado, for his lamentable death yesterday. it will be remembered him in mexico. their reasons for which we're here today at this summit at the north american leaders with president barack obama and the prime minister of canada, we have come through a work that has been food and fruitful with an exchange to the benefit of our respective citizens.

i am also very thankful to my two colleagues for the openness with which we have approached some very complex items on our working agenda. i recognize and value their enormous commitment to our common region. the leaders of north america share a vision of a strong, solidary, safe, competitive region that is able to successfully face head on the challenges of today. we agree our common challenges can only be faced together and therein lies the importance of having a dialogue, strong dialogue, between our three countries. the data that president obama has just given us is important, that our trade has exceeded $1 trillion for the first time, and i think that is not separate from a reality that has to be underscored in this complex world of economic problems and

severe crises. candida, the united states, and mexico are three countries that are growing right now, and generating jobs today. that growth of millions of jobs, many of them have to do precisely with the greatest trade exchanges that we have ever seen amongst these great nations. i would say the potential of north america tied to these three countries is such that within our own nations we have a great deal to do to make most of these opportunities with greater exchanges amongst our peoples. as mentioned today, we have progress on various fronts. for example, we have advanced on the deregulation of our countries, and our countries, and amongst our countries. we have progressed as well in harmonization of certain standards that facilitate trade. we have also progressed in our

case with the bilateral relationship with the border infrastructure, and all of this has led to, of course, the benefit of canadian-mexican -- canadian, mexican, and american families. i would also say the three nations have renewed their decisions to strengthen, corp. at the international level, particularly with issues as sensitive as the security of our citizens. every arab the values upon which our societies were unfounded, liberty, justice, respect for human rights, and today, the political dialogue amongst us is perhaps stronger than ever. we have renewed certain principles of our existence and of our challenges. the principle of shared responsibility, the exchange of information, and especially the strengthening of our

institutions that has been the guide of our corporation. clearly, i expressed to president obama and prime minister herbert, -- carper, that the fight that mexico is facing for a safer america also requires national factions amongst other things to stop the trafficking of weapons, to combat with greater strength money-laundering and, of course, to reduce the demand for drugs that strengthens criminal organizations appeared i also expressed to president obama and prime minister harper that mexico recognizes the commitment they have undertaken to progress under those lines. it is also necessary to strengthen the regional security focus. order to do this, we need to include our neighbors and central american partners who are also facing serious problems, and who need our

solidarity. the three countries have agreed to establish a joint dialogue mechanism with the central american integration system in support of efforts undertaken by central american nations to fight organized crime and in favor of regional security that benefits us all. of course, in this meeting, we had broached the topic of the regional economy. the leaders of north america agree that the united states, canada, and mexico must continue to delve deeper into our successful economic relationships so as to generate more jobs and greater well-being and all three countries. our governments recognize it is absolutely necessary to continued to fully comply with the nafta, as well as to explore new means of strengthening regional competitiveness. i am convinced that if we were together, we will become much more competitive than many areas

of the world that we're competing with the day. mexico's position is -- a solution to a complex of the situation today is not a return to protectionist practices that on the isolates' countries, reduce competitiveness of economies, and sends investments currying. in fact, part of the problem, part of the investment we need to see in the world economy it is to delve deeper into our economies and make most of our advantages that show our economic prosperity in terms of liver technology, natural resources, and only then will we be able to have a successful world that compete ferociously by regions. three countries have renewed the commitments to broaden the productive -- the supply chains of the region that will be even more interconnected, supporting

especially the small and medium scale companies. mexican exports to the world represent 37% -- have a 37% american content. in other words, american exports are american exports, and they generate millions of jobs for the region. in that is the need to work even more in this region and on a clear trilateral deregulation. for instance, and nano materials and emissions standards for some vehicles. today, we also agreed to work in a coordinated fashion on actions that we will be adopting to modernize infrastructure and for border management. after 10 years, the less two years we have seen three new border crossing areas between mexico and the united states. after 10 years of not having

seen one new route. we continue to work in a coordinated fashion to make our border more dynamic so it is a border of opportunity and progress on both sides. tomorrow in washington, ministers of the economy and trade will be meeting within the framework of the free trade commission of the nafta, so as to continue to work towards achieving these objectives. today, we have seen prosperity in the region depends on greater integration with full respect of our sovereignties. in this context, i whether to reiterate the interest of my country to join forces as soon as possible to the trans-pacific partnership and its negotiations because we know mexicans can contribute to a quick and successful conclusion of this project. if we join forces in this region where we see the greatest growth in the world, we will be generating benefits for our families, our workers, and also

substantially improving the competitiveness of the three countries in this context. we are convinced experience of the provision of mexico will and wrench this free trade project at the latest generation that encompasses countries in asia, oceania, and the americas. our country has a clear commitment to economic freedom. we even have the support of the private-sector so as to enter into the tpp. we are a nation that believes in free trade as a true tool to foster growth and development and we have acted as a result of this. i would also like to thank the united states and canada for renewing their support to mexico and its presidency and g 20. in june of this year, mexico will host the summit of the leaders of the g 20. we are convinced over and above the topics that we were dealing with there, that a complex

international environment needs to be an opportunity so that the world can redefine its development model with a firm commitment to the well-being of peoples and the care for the environment. ladies and gentlemen, and the summit, the representatives of the nine states, canada, and mexico, have undertaken an open and constructive dialogue. we have talked about the enormous challenges facing us to work together in a globalized world. as a result, we will be walking on building a new era that consolidates the right conditions for development in north america on the basis of its successful partnership, as we have seen so far today. my dear president obama, thank you for your hospitality. >> first of all, i want to thank you for so graciously and warmly visiting -- having us here today. i would also like to begin by

offering my sister -- sincere condolences to you, felipe, on the passing of your former president, who had much to do with the nafta partnership that we enjoy today. [speaking french. ] canada places the highest value amounts the partnership and friendship between our three countries. reform one of the largest free- trade zones which has been a great benefit to all of our nation's here we are also affected collaborators in the g 20 in responding to the challenges of the global recession and instability of these past few years. [speaking french]

as affirmed in our budget last week, our government is focused on creating jobs, growth, and long term prosperity for all canadians. [speaking french] i am especially pleased that the united states has welcome to canada and mexico's interests in wamp -- joining the trend pacific partnership. we also had used the discussions on continued cooperation and managing our borders, streamlining regulations, securing global supply chains, and advancing clean energy. in addition, we have announced a broad plan for north america pandemic preparedness and a new north america central america dialogue on security to fight transnational organized crime. finally, we discussed the agenda for the upcoming summit of the

americas in colombia. canada look forward to looking richer working with the united states and mexico to promote democratic principles, regional stability, and market-based economic growth with our partners in the western hemisphere. once again, barack and felipe, i look forward to our discussions. >> we are going to take questions from each press delegation. atafter last week's argument that the supreme court, many experts believe there could be a majority -- five-member majority -- to strike down the individual mandate. if that were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those americans who have become insured -- uninsured as a result of the law? the question for president calderon and prime minister harper, over the weekend,

governor romney said the u.s. used to promote free enterprise and on the world and he said "our president does not have the same feelings about american exception was in that we do, and i think over the last three or four four years people have begun to question that." my question to both of you is whether you think american influence has declined over the last three to four years. president obama, if you want to respond to that, too. >> well, on the second part of your question, you know, it is still primary season for the republican party. they will make a decision about who their candidate will be. it is worth noting, when i first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the democratic convention that was entirely about american exceptional some, and that my entire career has been a testimony to american

exceptional wasson -- exceptionalism. but i will cut some slack to those folks. i am confident spring court will uphold law. the reason is, in accordance with precedent out there, it is constitutional. that is not just my opinion, by the way. that is the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this was not even a close case. i think it is important. i watched some of the commentary last week to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. people's lives are affected by

the lack of availability of health care, and the and affordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions. the law that is already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that would not otherwise have it. there are tens of thousands of adults with pre-existing condition to have health care right now because of this law. parents do not have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they cannot be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a pre-existing condition. that is part of this law. millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies, and are getting preventive care because of the slot. that is just part that has

already been implemented. -- this law. this does not speak to the 30 million people that stand to gain coverage once fully implemented in 2014. i think the american people understand, justices should understand, in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care. so there is not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this spirit i hope that is not drawn in this political debate. ultimately, i am confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a

democratically-elected congress. i just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial consent -- restraint. and the unelected group of people would somehow or return -- overturn a duly constituted and past law. well, i am confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step. as i said, we are confident this will be over, this will be upheld. i am confident this will be

upheld because it should be upheld. again, that is not just my opinion. that is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they are not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency. >> the question was a little local for me, so i am glad the president of the united states answered it. i will take advantage of the moment to say, after increasing the budget line for the insurance sixfold and after having built more than 1000 clinics in the country, we are getting close to reaching

universal coverage of health care. full, free health care coverage for all people up to 18 years of age, including cancer coverage of the 112 million -- one and the six minimum -- 106 million mexicans will have from the reversal of coverage. i will say, i would hope one of the greatest economies in the world, such as the u.s., it could follow our example in achieving this. it was a great thing. >> i do not think you really expect me to intervene in the u.s. presidential election. let me just say this. this is something that i think transcends governments or administrations. for canada, the united states is and always will be our closest neighbor. our greatest ally and our best friend. i believe that american

leadership is at all times great an indispensable for the world. over the past two years, we have done great things together in terms of the response to the g 20, bilaterally on the recession and recovery. we have had, under your leadership, barack, successful intervention in libya. i think it has been a tremendous and growing partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps? >> for president calderon, you were referring to weapons. we would like to know what president obama said in terms of what will be done to stop the trafficking of weapons. president obama, i want to know what plan your government has in the presidential election process in mexico?

what was discussed in terms of the interviews with the candidates in mexico city? also for the government of the united states, i would like to know, there is a threat for the country in a sense on weapons pier weapons have come into the country, military leaks of letting arms come through. what will be done? for prime minister herbert, is the visa requirement going to be removed for mexicans? thank you. >> that is a lot of questions. go ahead. >> my position on this subject is very clear and i would repeat it here. let me broach it from another angle. it has been shown when there is an excessive, quick availability of weapons in any given society, there is an increase in

violence and murders that go on many years afterwards. this phenomenon took place in many places in africa after their civil war. we saw them in a cell door, guatemala, eastern europe, costello, bosnia, it has happened and is taking place in the days of the beat -- many areas of the world. we see the expiration of the assault weapon ban in 2004 coinciding with the harshest -- the beginning of the harshest period of violence we have ever seen. per my government, we have seized over 140,000 weapons in four years. i think the vast majority has een assault weapons, ak-47's,

and many were sold in gunshots all along the border in u.s., in mexico. there are approximately 8000 weapons shops. if we do our count, that means there are approximately nine weapons stores for each walmart that exists for the u.s. and mexico. on the significant deal of our discussion did touch on this. i recognize of the same time the administrative efforts undertaken by president obama particularly and his administration so that the agencies can control the illegal actions and curb the exporting of guns to mexico. we have seen a much more active effort in this sense than any other time in the past. i have a great deal of respect for the u.s. legislation, especially its second amendment, but i know if we do not stop the

traffic and weapons into mexico, and if we do not have mechanisms to forbid the sale of weapons, as we had in the 1990's, for a registry of guns, at least for assault weapons, then we will never be able to stop the violence in mexico or stop a future turning of those guns upon the u.s. if i am against the trafficking of weapons in mexico, i am against the trafficking of weapons anywhere, and within any circumstance. the government of mexico will never be able to accept anything that has to do with opening this. president obama has been clear on the position of his government. we understand the work done by agencies to stop the criminals, but this cannot be an obstacle

to the cooperation we have to have a month mexico and the united states to stop criminal activities that underlie this issue, and which is one of the greatest issues for mexico. i understand the internal problems for the political point of view in the united states, and i have mentioned this publicly in congress in the u.s. i said things exactly the way i believe them. i set out right, there is a great deal of discrepancy between the points of view, and a very complex political issues, but it is important to underscore a bit. -- underscore it. that was the part of the question that i am able to answer. >> with respect to the president -- presidential elections in mexico, vice-president biden met with the candidates to express

sentiments that are similar to the ones that stephen just expressed, with respect to the u.s. elections. the friendship between our three countries, a partnership between our three countries, extends beyond and is more fundamental than any particular party or particular election. that is the message we have to send with respect to mexico. i have had an excellent working relationship with felipe. i expect to have an excellent working relationship with the next president, whoever that will be. the underlying common interests we have, economically, socially, culturally, the people-to-people relationship we have is so important, it transcends partisan politics. with respect to the issue of guns, i have made very clear in every meeting i have had with felipe -- and we have put into

ever practices to stop the illegal trafficking of guns north to south. it is a difficult task but one that we have taken seriously and acted in unprecedented steps. we will continue to court may closely with the mexican government because we recognize the poll that has taken respect to families and innocent individuals inside mexico. this is part of our broader comprehensive cooperation in weakening the grip of marco- trafficking within mexico. -- marker trafficking within mexico. we have the responsibility to reduce the demand for drugs. we have a responsibility to make sure that both cash is not flowing into mexico. obviously, president caldera take seriously his responsibilities to apply effective law enforcement within mexico. i think he is taking steps to do that. he will continue to partner together in order to make progress on this important issue.

>> you asked me about the visa requirements. the visa requirement is really the only effective means we have in canada today to deal with large scale bogus refugee claims under our refugee determination system. legislation that is being implemented -- in fact, there is legislation before parliament to enhance those changes. that legislation will, in the future, give us tools other than visa requirements to do with that particular problem. as of today, that remains the only tool at our disposal. >> hello, gentlemen. i have a couple of questions on two critical issues you were discussing today. one on trade, one on crime. on trade, prime minister harper, why is can the's position at the negotiating table on the transpacific

partnership so important for canada? secondly, to be a player, are you willing to give up, as a precondition, our supply management system? president obama, you said there needs to be high standards for a country to be there. i wonder whether you think yes, canada has met those high standards, whether you want us to drop our traditional supply management system? on crime, we in canada read about the challenges that mexico has on the drug cartels, the horrible violence that occurs down there. perhaps it is possible that many canadians and perhaps americans do not see it as affecting their lives. perhaps it does not affect their communities. on that issue, why do you 3 believe that a three-country coordinated approach is necessary to protect our citizens? prime minister, being the only person that can speak english and french, if you could do that, please. >> in response to the question

on the transpacific partnership, this is our desire to be part of that negotiation, as part of canada's ambitious trade agenda. we are currently in negotiation with over 50 countries around the world, including the european union, japan, and india. this is obviously a logical extension of the desire of our government to dramatically broaden our free trade relationships around the world. on know, canada's position trans-pacific partnership is the same as our position in any trade negotiations. we expect to negotiate and debate all manners of issues and we see campuses outcomes to free trade agreements. those negotiations, canada will attempt to promote and defend can the the's interests across individual sectors. on the question of security, the

security problems -- challenge, particularly around the drug trade, it is a series regional problems arise our hemisphere that has real impacts -- not the kind of governance and security impacts we see maybe in central america and the caribbean and elsewhere -- but has real serious impact on the health and safety of communities and our country as well. as these criminal networks are transnational, it is important to that our attempts to fight them are equally transnational. that is why it is important work on these issues for these countries. [speaking french]

[speaking french]

>> with respect to the tpp, as

is true with any process at arriving on a trade agreement, every country participating will have to make some modifications. that is inherent to in the process. the charter countries has their own idiosyncrasies. certain industries that have come in the past, been protected. certain practices that may be unique to the country but panda breeding disadvantages for businesses from other countries. so it is a process of everyone making adjustments. i do not think canada would be unique in that. are there areas where we would like to see changes in terms of canadian practices? of course. i assure you, canada will have some complaints directed at us and every member of the trans- pacific partnership the venture and will have to make modifications in order to

accommodate the larger interest of growing the overall economy and expanding trade and ultimately jobs. i do not anticipate there is something unique about canada that would not be true for any of the other aspirants to forming this transpacific partnership. with respect to the transnational drug trade, first and foremost, i think we should be concerned about what is happening in mexico and central america because, when you have innocent families, women and children being gunned down on the streets, that should be everybody's problem, not just their problem. there is a sense of neighborly regarding concerns that has to be part of our caucus and

foreign policy. more practically, the united states shares a border with mexico. if you have this kind of violence and the power of the drug trade as a whole expanding in countries that are so closely affiliated with us, central american countries, if you start to get a larger and larger space in which they have control over series chunks of the economy. if they are undermining institutions in these countries. that will impact our capacity to do business in these countries. it could have a spillover affect in terms of our national living in those countries, tourists visiting these countries. it could have a deteriorating effect overall on the nature of our relationship.

that is something we have to pay attention to. as i said, the mexican government has taken this very seriously at great cost to itself. we have an obligation to take just as seriously, in part, because we are their ultimate destination for a large chunk of this market. steven and i were trading notes. in places like the united states and canada, this is not just an issue of what was traditionally urban. this is disseminated across the community. you go into rural communities. you have methamphetamine sales that are devastating. young and old alike, and some of that is originally sourced in mexico. even in the most remote, most isolated parts of canada or the u.s., they are being impacted by this drug trade, and we have to

work cooperatively in order to deal with it. >> i would like to look at it from another standpoint. the security of north america is absolutely tied to each of its member states. there cannot be full security in this country or in canada or in mexico if we do not have a system that actually enables the corporation mechanisms to act in facing threats on our borders, that are transnational by their nature. these are threats that are not just tied into drug-trafficking, which is transnational, of course. i will give two examples of success stories i was mentioning this morning. one, the attempt to take to mexico one of the children of

gaddafi. this implied an international and very north american operation, because it was headed up by a canadian business woman who hired an american company, which hired, in turn, mexican pilots as counterfeiters. as multinational corporation would not have been avoided without the international security mechanisms that we did not have before but now we have. also, being able to avoid the assassination of the saudi ambassador here in washington would not have been possible without the mechanisms of cooperation we have today. so thinking what happens in mexico doesn't have anything to do with the security of the citizens of this country, or of any other citizen of north america, is a mistake. we have to understand are all tied to one another. now, security understood in the

regional sense, in order to understand that, we have to understand where the greatest threat of secured actually lays. the united states has a clear idea of its threat, of its security priorities, the threat of terrorism of international terrorism, terrible attacks on the u.s., people, and another threat is clearly in transnational organized crime. i insist this is not crime organizations that are strictly mexican in nature. they do not have a nationality and do not operate in just one country. they are probably operating in this city. in washington, for instance, the number of homicides per 100,000 have been -- inhabitants is higher by more than 20 than the largest number than any of the big cities in mexico. these are international

organizations that have a growing destructive capacity well beyond borders and threatens anyone, anywhere. is true, the efforts that we undertake clearly make it possible to contain that threat and to prevent it from acting in society, not just in the u.s. or canada, but in mexico. that explains why, despite the perception of my country, last year, 23 million tourists came to our country by plane, plus another 7 million in cruise ships, and another 50 million crossing the border by land. that is also why there are 2 million mexicans living comfortably in mexico and many more living here who came to visit us here and see us at the white house. that is also why 1.6 million

canadians come to mexico every year. that is 5% of the canadian population that travels to mexico every year. that also explains why, despite the fact that a state such as texas recommends that none of its young people should travel anywhere in mexico, that is why there are hundreds of thousands of texans that go to mexico, enjoy it, and we have not seen one single incidents with u.s. spring breakers this past spring, for instance. this is of great concern because these are multinational criminal organizations and the mechanisms to defeat them have to be multinational. in addition to the solidarity -- expression of solidarity from president obama who said he cannot sacrifice from the expressions of threats facing a neighbor of his. vulnerability from an

institutional ordered you in mexico and central america is something that impacts and jeopardize as all the citizens of north america. >> thank you very much, everyone. >> the president, canadian prime minister harper, and mexican president felipe calderon wrapping up this press conference. the heads of state are in washington for a summit of leaders of north american countries. if you missed any of this press briefing, we will rear it tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on this network. canadian president -- prime minister stephen harper will also be speaking at the woodrow wilson international center this afternoon. he will be discussing the economic and political relationship, energy, the environment, and national security. that will be on c-span2 starting at 4:00 eastern. before that, live on c-span, a

discussion on what is like for news correspondents to cover foreign wars and conflicts. reporters from the associated press, cbs, and new york times will take part. we will have that live starting at 3:45 eastern, here on c-span. >> america will suffer a catastrophic cyber attack. they do not choose those words indiscriminately. they were already five months into the morning period. that tells me we have to move rapidly but not in a way that it violates privacy or the basic tenets of privacy, and that encourages quick reaction, not regulatory environment. >> the chairman of the house committee on technology. congressman greg walden on cybersecurity and privacy, and

an o'clock eastern on c-span2 -- peter o'clock eastern on c- span2. >> -- 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> it examines the egyptian revolution and the future of that country. then the promise and peril of the arab revolution. then we look at the downside of revolutions in the book "the devil we don't know." all these offense tonight on "book tv" on c-span2. >> on saturday, newt gingrich spoke at the fate and freedom coalition. that stain is holding its primary tomorrow, along with maryland and the district of columbia. this is about 20 minutes.

[applause] >> this is quite an event. she spent all week campaigning here in wisconsin come as a wisconsinite and we have had a great reception. our son-in-law is also from sheboygan. we have connections on both sides of the state. we were up in green bay last night inspecting the team that we each have a share of. we are glad to be back in wisconsin. i am the one so many of you are out here. wisconsin, on june 5, will be the most important center of decision making in america. i am glad all of you are committed for being for the canada that is determined to

protect the taxpayer, our children, and do what is right for america. [applause] felicity and i came back in 2009 and did a fundraiser in milwaukee. i came back here to waukesha just before the elections and campaigned. he was saying what he was going to do. he was open and out there. as a result, the people of this state elected a republican senator, republican house, and the people were not confused. the entire fight of the last year and has been an effort by a small interest group with enormous money to change the will of the people in a way that i think is very much against democracy and very much against self-government's. i commend you for standing there and be willing to fight on june 5, and make sure that we will win. is one of the most important elections in american history and will change behavior all

across the country. thank you for being active citizens. [applause] the also say, we are proud to be associated with robbery and all the work he had done across the country. the number of folks we have here today, who have been out at the victory centers, the number of folks organizing, is encouraging this is the most important election of your lifetime. the re-election of barack obama will be a disaster for our children and grandchildren, and a disaster for our new country. you are key to the grassroots extent -- campaign that stops the left from being in power in washington, d.c. i thank you for your active involvement. [applause] let's be really clear how big the stakes are. american civilization, as we have known it, is under attack

on two fronts. on one front, there is a radical secularism which the elderly driver got out of our language, out of our life, government, and make us a country of extraordinary on american nature appeared on the other front, there is radical islamists who would impose sharia. you saw it with the latest incident in saudi arabia. every church in the arabian peninsula should be destroyed, with no particular complaint with our state department. these are the two fronts we are engaged in. this is an historic cultural fight for the very survival of american civilization. let me be clear. we believe -- felicity and i have done books and movies about this. we believe this is an exceptional country, not because you and i are exceptional, but because we are the only society in history that says we have been an down by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and that means we're the only

society that has power that comes from god, to each one of you personally. and then you loan power to the government. [applause] this means that you are a citizen, and the government is supposed to be a public servant. obama has the opposite model. he has a european the latest model in which the government is sovereign, and the government tells us what to do. that is why this fight is so fundamental. it is not just barack obama. it is the academic community, the news media, entertainment, it is the judges. there is an entire it elitist collection of people who believe they know better than us, who will read the fine for us, and will, in fact, dictate to us. we did a film on of john paul ii

called "nine days to change the world." we went to europe and interviewed. we spoke to someone in czechoslovakia who had been in prison. of course, the head of the solidarity union and the head of poland. we asked them what was the decisive moment in defeating the soviet empire? we would -- we said it was the great ron redmond anecdote. and both said it was when the pope came and spent nine days on a pilgrimage. the first morning he had 3 million people in victory square for mass. they looked around and realized, as someone said in the movie, we realize there were more of us than the government. that is the whole point of the mobilization you represent. there are more people in america by a huge margin who believe our rights come from our creator,

then there are that believe that we should erase got from our memory. we need to assert them. [applause] but need to break beyond normal politics. we need to break -- reach out to every person of every political background, ethnic persuasion, to agree that our rights come from our creator, and we need to create a movement dedicated to changing the judges, bureaucracy, the politicians, the news media, and college professors, until we get back to an american who understands our its rights comebacks from and where its future is based on. [applause] i take this so seriously, our campaign manager and i spent nine years working on a paper that you can see at newt.org, a 54-page outline on when you can

do about judges. we are not helpless in front of anti-religious bigot. we are in a position to use the legislative and executive branches to balance the judicial branch. i would urge you to visit and look at the paper. you will realize, intellectually, we have been giving up an argument that we should not give up. none of the founding fathers would have agreed. the number one complaint of the founding fathers was no taxation without representation. the no. 2 complaint was british judges who they regarded as dictatorial imposition of the king, rather than representatives of the justice. out of founder hollington says the judicial branch is the weakest of the three branches. one never fight the other branches because it would inevitably lose. this will modern notion of the supreme court being supreme over the president and congress is nonsense.

it is one of three coequal branches. and we need to reassert that we, the people, are the ultimate the fighters of america, not a handful of appointed judges. [applause] we also need to reassert, in your local legislature and school boards, that you expect teachers to teach the facts. [applause] every child should encounter the declaration of independence and explore the question, what did the founding fathers mean, we are endowed by ike leggett -- our creator? what does it mean to say we hold these truths to be self evident. why did the northwest ordinance of 1787 to organize indiana, illinois, wisconsin, michigan, why does it say, religion, morality, and knowledge being

important? schools are vital. notice in order. religion, morality, and knowledge in that order. eliminated by the modern left to be only knowledge, which explains much of what is wrong with our culture today. [applause] you do not have to have a theological agenda. you just have to say, let's teach the northwest ordinance and ask why did they say that? or you can use abraham lincoln's second inaugural, four years of civil war, six and a 20,000 dead. more than all other wars combined. he had been dramatically shaped by the pain of war and knew he personally had opposed it because at any point he could of excepted the south leaving and the war would have ended. because he took it personally, he became a dramatically more religious person. if you get a chance to go to washington, stay in the lincoln memorial. read the gettysburg address which says, one nation under

god, which lincoln personally wrote in by hand looking at the military cemetery in gettysburg. that is what got me back into politics when the ninth circuit ruled that one nation under god is unconstitutional in the pledge. i concluded that was so on american and hostile that we needed a long-term strategy to replace judges that do not understand america. [applause] and then turn and read aloud slowly as lincoln would have done it the second inaugural. 702 words, 14 references to god. two quotations from the bible. you tell me how a secular historian can explain lincoln with no reference to his religious beliefs, no reference to what he thought god intended, no reference to lincoln subordinating himself and his country to the will of god. it is impossible to be historically accurate in describing a secular lincoln

because that person did not exist. it had been replaced by a deeply religious person. [applause] we talked about it for a long time. we knew it would be hard but we decided running for president matter because it was an opportunity to take to the american people fundament of basic to it -- decisions about who we are and what have to do. it all comes together in the same pattern. for example, if you want to take a radical islam, you have to have an american energy policy that creates an american independent so that no future president was about to a saudi king. -- will bow to a saudi king. [applause] if you truly believe in religious freedom, you have to take on and administration which is a wood to simultaneously

apologize to fanatic islamists killing american while waging war against the catholic church and sees no contradiction. if you are a christian, they can oppose you, but if you are a radical islamist, they owe you an apology. that is out that obama is. [applause] -- how bad obama is. the administration has adopted a principle, since the burning of the korans, which should of been addressed by the president calling on religious leaders to condemn the political prisoner that had been defacing korans and using them to meet messages out of jail. member the ones that defaced the koran, not the americans. they adopted this as part of their ongoing effort to appease the enemy. it says, we will hold those things to be sacred, which

others call sacred. they did it for the koran. my challenge to the obama administration is simple. put up all of the process that have been taken down. you want things all things sacred? we will let you have it. [applause] [applause] >> tell the moslem brotherhood if they keep burning churches in egypt, you are cutting off the billion dollars you just gave them. [applause] >> we need an administration that actually think religious liberty includes christians and jews. [applause] >> men, we need to turn to entertainment television and say if you're going to run a television show that has the word christian in a derogatory name, try to run the same show with the word muslim, because if you cannot say muslim and you can say christian, it shows you how derogatory the show is.

that this house fundamental the fight is. an american energy program will create american jobs, keep the money at home, strengthen the dollar, increased royalties to the federal government, lower the price of gasoline. if gasoline dropped as much as natural gas has, it would be $1.13 a gallon, so - [applause] >> you can simultaneously week and radical islam, and improve life for americans, and that is kind of is the kind of policy we need that put us back in charge of our life and dramatically reduce the size of washington. as speaker of the house, i led the effort to balance the federal budget, and we balance it for four straight years, the only time in your lifetime. [applause]

>> paul ryan, who you will hear from is a great guy and is doing a great job as the budget committee chairman, and he is moving us in the right direction. the key to balancing the budget is very simple. we want to shrink the government to set the revenues available, not raise the revenue to catch up with obama, the credits card. [applause] >> i will close with this practical example of morality -- it is immoral for us to spend so much when we crush our children and grandchildren to death. it is a moral obligation to go back to a balanced budget. if we do it correctly, and you will and oppose it -- you would have to impose a balanced budget on washington, and at the same time you could put the royalties from natural gas and

oil into a sinking fund to pay off the debt. if we had discipline and did that, and open the american energy independence, you would simultaneously pay off the debt for your children and grandchildren, so literally by the end of their lifetime, america would be dead-free and that would have the effect of no ball into saudi kings, and no worrying about chinese stakeholders. he would be back in an independent country. you would have american foreign policy based on american interest, not appeasing enemies, and you would be committed toward leading the world towards genuine religious liberty that the imposition of foreign beliefs. i think all of this is possible, but only possible if we defeat barack obama. we have to repeal obama-care. we have to repeal the anti- religious behaviors. he has given us a long list. i believe we are up to it.

with your help, it will start to work. our goal will be that the new congress and you will have to help when the senate seat here to make this possible, we need the new congress to stay in session, and by the time they swear in the president we should have revealed obama-care and dodd-frank. as president, i would sign them on the first day, and the first executive order would eliminate the white house czars at that moment. [applause] >> the second executive order would reimpose ronald reagan's mexico city policy that no u.s. money goes to pay for abortion anywhere in the world. [applause] the third executive order would reinstate george w. bush's freedom of conscience provision

and repeal every one of the obama anti-religious moves in the administration and return us to genuine religious liberty. [applause] >> the fourth executive order would move the american embassy from tel levied to jerusalem in recognition of israel's right to define its own capital. [applause] >> i participated in 1980 with ronald reagan in a remarkable change of direction for america that ended up creating 16 million new jobs, rebuilding our belief in america, and defeating the soviet empire. in 1994, i helped to architect the contract with america, which changed congress in one day. with your help next tuesday, i will look for to defeating barack obama decisively, debating him in october, and i am confident that he will look

like as much of the radical as he is, and we would have a remarkable debate, and at the end of that process, the country would repudiate the most radical administration of our times. thank you. [applause] >> we will have more from that event in just a moment. the republican candidates are on the road today ahead of the primaries in the wisconsin, md., and washington d.c. mitt romney has to events in wisconsin today. today he told a rally at an oil company in a milwaukee. rick santorum is attending five events today. he's hosting a rally in oshkosh and will later go to a birthday party for the republican party.

newt gingrich is spending the day in maryland. he will speak to supporters at hood college. ron paul has no public events today. be sure to follow the events of the republican primary coverage on c-span. we will have a simulcast of the election night coverage at 7:00 eastern here on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. you can also join us on facebook and twitter. now back to the wisconsin face and freedom coalition. but romney spoke for about 20 minutes. ♪

>> what a remarkable thing to do -- get up on saturday morning and come listen to some politicians. you guys are just fabulous. i appreciate you being here. i appreciate the extraordinary introduction. paul ryan, what a leader in our party. a brilliant man. i very much appreciate his support and endorsement. i appreciate the fact you are focusing on what has got to be done, which is getting our country back on track and replacing barack obama. that's the job we have to get done soon. [applause] i listen to congressman ryan and he listed almost every area we confront right now. i thought i would take a moment

and talk about the process, the experience i have had of getting a chance to go across the country and meet fellow americans. i had not expected that i would have the chance to do what i'm doing. i thought i would be in business like my dad was all my life. the opportunity opened up for me after the olympics and i found myself having the chance to go across the country and meet americans. i meet people you don't see on the news. they have done something very unusual. generally not a good thing that gets them on the news. i get to meet every day americans who don't make the news but hooton and west inspire. i come away from this process more enthusiastic and optimistic about the future of the country

because i've seen the american people first and. i met a husband and wife in their 60s yesterday. they had expected to be retiring about now. they purchased a couple of duplexes as rental properties. but home values have collapsed 30% under the president, so they are not able to retire. one is working at a company that only has $1 million in revenue, and he is a salesman, so how many sales people you can afford a small company is something he has to worry about, and his wife works at a department store. both are working hard, but both are committed to making sure their future is bright. they have a son out of work, but they are helping him. tough times, but people that are not discouraged, not despondent. i met another woman yesterday

from avastin who was born outside of this country, came here, and has two children, sons in their 30's. one of them is disabled. she works as a translator. she loves her work. she provides for herself and her family. a remarkable story of american spirit. i was at saint louis to get a guy was working for the city in the landscaping division, and decided to start his own landscaping business. he has some two hundred people working for him. his only worry is gasoline prices, driving around from home-to-home, which is not easy to do with the price of gasoline, and he hears that the epa is thinking about regulating carbon emissions from lawn mowers. then, he thinks how can i afford replacing lawn mowing equipment and snowblower snacks

not a lot of snow this year. he did not have to get them out often. another man i met in san antonio, texas, he came from this country from cambodia in 1976. he went to work in a restaurant, then as a taxi driver in new york city, decided to save money and apply to business school, got an mba and started working in government- related positions, ultimately became part of the white house team for george w. bush and was appointed ambassador to the united nations. 14 years after coming to this country. he said you could not imagine the motion i have as i stood before the foundations, said that i come representing the people of the united states of america. [applause] >> there is no other nation on

earth like america. i used to travel around and see different countries, and i was always proud of the fact that i have a special gift no one else had. i was american. there was no question in my heart said it was special to be american. i wonder why it is as i tell you these stories and meet people across the country that we are an extraordinary land with extraordinary people who live done more to lift people around the world of poverty than any other nation. free enterprise, as we promoted -- [applause] >> and of course, the greatest contribution was not just free enterprise and the concept of freedom itself, but the sacrifice of our sons and daughters over many wars to free people from tyranny and

despotism. this is a remarkable land. [applause] >> i wonder, as i think about those things, if it does not all go back to the very foundation of america, that when the founders of the country crafted the words of the declaration of independence, i believe they chose in those few words and principles a vision for america that would make this unique and exceptional in the world, not only the freest nation, but the most prosperous and the greatest. you know those words. they concluded by brilliance or inspiration that we were endowed by our creator with the rights, and among those rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and those

rights, and those associated with them, i believe, are what made america what we are, and today those rights are under attack by this administration, which is one more reason why we have to replace this administration. [applause] >> this is an election not just about a person, not even about a party. is about a vision of america. we are going to choose the destiny of america, just like the founders chose a couple hundred years ago. we will choose what america is going to be like over the next hundred years in this election. this is an inflection point, where we decided we're going to be committed to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or a different course. president obama believes in a government-centered society. he does not call a.

, but if you listen to his speeches he believes government calling our lives will do a better job doing so that individuals. you see that item after item. think about the economy. did you realize that government at all levels today consumes 37% of the total economy? 37%. if we allow obama-care to stand, it will consumed directly almost half of the total american economy. then, when you consider the intrusions of power they are putting into industries like the automotive industry, the financial-services industry, the energy industry -- they will control either directly or indirectly over half of the american economy, and we will have to stop and ask ourselves, are we still a free economy? do we believe in free enterprise, or are we becoming

what some of the most unsuccessful countries have become, a government-dominated economy? these are the choices we have to make. the president continues to build government larger and larger, creating more and more dependence upon government. this is a time when he is willing to put together trillion dollar deficits. can you imagine that as your legacy, and he has done it every year. if i am president, we are going to cut federal spending, cap federal spending, and finally have a balanced budget amendment. [applause] >> government-centered society is crushing economic freedom. you understand the impact of

regulations, for instance, and how it could make it harder for small businesses to grow. let me mention another one. taxation. we know high taxes make it harder for people to make ends meet and kill jobs, but let me give a little granular to that. the president wants to raise the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. think about that for a moment. do you know how many people in america were in businesses that are taxed at the individual level, at the marginal tax level, not the corporate tax rate? 54% of american workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals, so when you raise that tax rate from 35% to 40%, you kill jobs. that is what he is doing. he would rather have money for the american people than for small business that encourages free enterprise and economic and fatality. there are some other ideas.

one of the special ideas on obama-care is to apply a 2.3% tax on sales of businesses. if you want to start some new idea, and own profitable business, you will get taxed even if you are not profitable. one russian company said they would have to lay off two hundred people to pay the new tax on their business. then you heard the vice president yesterday -- did you hear him yesterday? he has a lot of things to say, does he not? [laughter] fornytime you're a looking something to go after in a political sense, just listen to the vice president. >> the vice president has material for us. [laughter] yesterday, he was talking about taxing companies all over the

world. if you are here as an american company, we will tax you for your enterprises. does he not understand this means the enterprises will leave and go somewhere else? they just kill economic freedom. they make it harder and harder for our economy to grow and would be allowed to work. the proof is in the pudding. look at this recovery. the weakest recovery we have seen since hoover. this is a time for freedom. it is not a time for the government to dominate society or the economy. [applause] you know, i think the american worker should be able to join a union and form a union if they would like to. i do not think you need to be forced on them and i do not think that unions should be able to take money out of a worker's pay check and give it to a politician that the union boss

wants to give it to. [applause] you know that religious freedom is under attack. again, under obamacare. they want to dictate to the catholic church that the employees of the catholic church have to be provided by the catholic church with health insurance that gives them free contraceptive entry sterilization treatments despite the fact that this violates the conscience of the catholic church. if i am president of the united states, this great choice we have will make sure that in my case, i will restore and protect religious freedom. we are one nation under god and that must be maintained. [cheers and applause] life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness. life was the first of those. i want to protect the sanctity of human life. if i am president of the united states, unlike this one, i will restore the mexico city policy. i will defund planned parenthood and i will take our money out of the united nations population fund. [applause] i mentioned to you what it was like being able to travel abroad and standing in a little taller, a little straighter because i knew i had a gift that others did not have and that was i was american. something we all share. i think that means a different thing to each of us. it means something important to all of us.

people understand it is important to be american. it is exceptional and special to be american. our president does not have the same feelings about american exceptionalism that we do. over the last three or four years, people have begun to question that. on this tuesday, we have an opportunity to vote. to take the next up. to bring back the special nature of being american. it to not turn us into a government-dominated society like we have seen other nations pursued but to restore to this country of principles that made this nation the greatest in the history of the earth. to restore our commitment to the pursuit of happiness. i represent someone who believes in the stunning principles. the president says he wants to transform america. i do not want to transform america. i want to restore to america the principles that made us the hope of the earth and together,

we will do that on tuesday and every day thereafter until we get back the white house. thank you. thank you. ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪

>> rick santorum was also at the face and freedom coalition gathering and we will hear what he had to say in just a few minutes. there is lots of last-minute campaigning by the republican presidential candidates with the primaries coming up. mitt romney wraps up a day of campaigning with a rally in milwaukee. rick santorum is also in wisconsin. newt gingrich spoke earlier in hood college. ron paul has no public events today. be sure to follow the coverage of the republican primaries tomorrow. we will simulcast a portion of the coverage at 7:00 eastern

here on the c-span. also joining the conversation by phone, on facebook, and twitter. now back to the wisconsin face and freedom coalition event with rick santorum. he spoke for about 20 minutes. >> thank you. thank you for being here, thank you for showing an overwhelming presence to those are focusing their time and energy on wisconsin, showing wisconsin stance for faith and freedom and the values that made this country great. that is what i hear as i crossed this great state of wisconsin.

i would like to thank you for your hospitality. karen and i have been traveling around and she is at another event today. i want to thank you because one of the things i hear everywhere i go as i cross this state and across this country, people say the same thing, even more than hello, which is i am praying for you. we appreciate it very much. people say how do you go on? then continue to cross the country, we have had two days off, but i have been on the road every other day, trying to deliver the message to this country that this is the most important election in our country's history. we have been able to do it

because of your purse and support. i just want to thank all of you for doing that. one of the campaigns for president a week or so ago suggested it would take an act of god for rick santorum to win the republican nomination for president. i don't know about you, but i believe in acts of god. [applause] you know, a lot of issues have been focused on in this campaign year people are saying that their races be about the economy. economy. economy. economy. that is where all the energy is. the economy is important. i talked about it all the time. also talk about the other issues that are important. i was just out at the jelly belly factory. [laughter]

i gave a talk to remind us what conservative means. this was not just focus on one issue. never has been because we understand it is insufficient. you cannot have a strong economy, as you are safe from threats from around the world. you cannot have a strong economy unless you are built upon a strong moral foundation and a strong family. that is the message i have been delivering across this country. it is a comprehensive message. it is the reagan message. it is the three-legged stool. why? not because they happen to be very nice principal positions. because they work together. they interrelate. we cannot be a party or movement that just focuses on one thing because it happens to be the most important issue at the time without understanding

that what rallies and encourages us as conservatives are issues far beyond just a moment. the pressing issue of the day. certainly, you have to have a plan to address those issues. we have. we have gone out there with a message that the wall street journal refers to as supply- side economics for the working man. we talk about energy, growing the energy sector of our economy. we talk about manufacturing. one of the great manufacturing states of this country is wisconsin. we see manufacturers still leaving the state of wisconsin. the opportunity to compete against foreign competition makes it an even playing field for america. that is why i have gone out with a plan that repeals every single obama regulation that he has put in place that cost over $100 million a year. [applause] we will do that on day one. we can do that on day one.

i am the only person that has gone out there and made that bold statement because is constricting the growth of our economy. number two, to take the tax code and simplify it. two rates. simple, five deductions. children, a charity's, pensions, health care, and housing. pro-growth. corporate tax, cut in half. so we can compete on the world coming eliminated. we have a plan. we will reduce the deficit 5 trillion dollars in five years. we will get to a balanced budget in five years. all of these things we have been out there -- [applause] we have another talking about how we are going to grow the

economy and shrink the size of the government. let us be honest. shrinking the size of the government, we can try to do that but it is we do not have strong families and, we are only temporary bit closer to getting the numbers down here without a strong basis for the government to be able to receive, someone else has to pick up the slack. senator grossman showed me a chart that if you are a single woman earning $15,000 with two children, the state of wisconsin provides $30,000 in benefits. $30,000 in benefits. i am sure it is well meaning. you want to help people in difficult situations. if she gets married, she loses $30,000. what have we done? in an attempt to help people who are going through a

difficult time, we have destroyed the opportunity for marriage. we have destroyed the opportunity for people to get married, even if they are co- habitation. it is government doing things they think are being helpful. they're not. the federal government is not at the state is not. that is why we have to get these programs out of washington. we need to get them back to the states and they have to get them back into the local communities. we have to start understanding that, as much as we try to help, if we do not have families the more stable and secure in america, limited government is impossible. the poverty rate amongst two- parent families is 1/5 of what it is among single-parent families. almost 40%. we know that you cannot have a stable and growing economy as the family breaks down. it is.

in america today, 51% of people over the age of 18 are married. that is down from 71% 30 years ago. down 5% in the last three years. it is dropping like a rock. in part because of the leaders who disparaged the institution of marriage and are trying to cheap and it. ladies and gentlemen, we need someone who will go out and tell the truth to the american public about what is concerning our economy. what is concerning the american family. we need to be able to tie the two together so we can have a resurgence in america. a resurgence that allows us to cut taxes and create energy policies to grow the economy, but also one that understands that we need someone to remind us of what made this country

great. [applause] as ronald reagan did, this country is a great country because we were founded great. we were founded on the idea of limited government. we saw that debate in the supreme court justice week. is the constitution a document that actually says you can limit the power of the federal government or have we reached a point where the constitution is not worth the paper is printed on? the court will decide that. we get to be said that, too. we get to the side that in the election. this election has to be about big things. limited government. the unlimited potential of the american people. whether we will build the great society one church, one school, one community and civic organization, one small

business at a time. or whether we will be ruled from the top. the two biggest issues in this race that we have talked about a lot are obamacare and energy. i would just share with you that if you want obamacare repealed -- anybody want it repealed? [cheers and applause] we cannot rely on the supreme court. we have to rely on people who want to stand up and fight for freedom, just like you are doing here in the state of wisconsin. standing by your governor and fighting for freedom and opportunity is here. [cheers and applause] you have to fight for that. the central part of that fight is government takeover of health care. as justice kennedy said, it will change the relationship between the government and their people.

why? because our country was based on we the people. we the people govern. the government is there to serve us. when the government controls or your health care and tells you what you must purchase, tells you to do things that may be against your conviction, you know longer rule the government. the government rules you. that needs to change. [applause] that is why, if we are born to win this election, we have to make this the centerpiece. there is no issue before us that has a greater impact on a greater number of voters in such an important way. unemployment.

the congressional budget office says the they will increase unemployment. slowing down economic growth. again, raising taxes. spending money. and, of course, the relationship between you and the government. you will not be told how to run your life when it comes to your health care. your economic freedom will be taken. your religious freedom, as well. think of all of the richness that if we make this the centerpiece and repeal obamacare and have someone who can go out and make the arguments -- i never supported those arguments, ever. ever. [applause]

on monday, i stood at the steps of the supreme court and i said, if you want obamacare repealed, you cannot rely on the supreme court. we have to pick up 13 votes to win the senate. you have to have this reached the mandate for repeal. that means you have to have someone who can make the arguments, a ticket to the public and take it to the president. unfortunately, the choice you have before you in this election in wisconsin on tuesday -- one person who can make that case. you have when you cannot. why? he presented the blueprint for obamacare and advocated it. they said a prescription on what you can buy, taxes employers, people who do not buy insurance. that is the massachusetts health care plan. the people who developed its actually went and health

obamacare. obama developing his plan. he is uniquely disqualified. the reason karen and i decided with seven children -- we knew this would be the biggest issue in this race because it is about freedom. it is about who we are. i knew this would not work unless we can have someone who takes this without reservation. someone who says over the, this is what you said. this is what you did. it is obama's achilles heel. 75% would like to see it repealed. it is the most pressing issue of our time because it is about who we are. why in the world what they

republican party give that issue away in the general election? [applause] if it is not just that, the other big issue right now is energy. i guess prices. i never agreed to mandate global warming. never once was i a member of the club who bought into political science and man-made global warming. [applause] nor did i see it as a reason to go ahead and expand the size and skill of government by imposing a cap and tax program. again, maybe the second most visceral issue, $5 gasoline and

who knows what it will be later? the most visceral issue that will harm our economy and hurt the average person, those folks were in the middle who swing elections one way or another, there is only one candidate that did not buy into this political science. only one candidate who did not say, higher gas prices are a good thing. we need to have less consumption of gasoline in america. there is only one candidate who said that we need to have a pro-energy program to grow the economy here it to another area is on federal lands to reduce the budget deficit as well as the economy. there is only one person who can beat obama without him saying, by the way, you bought into this too. why? why would we give this issue away? the top two economic issues as to who we are as americans and what is affecting the american public -- we have someone who can make the argument and make

it to all conservatives. to rally conservatives. how did we win the 2010 election? we won it. we won it by energizing the tea party and storming the polling places. now with moderate candidates. with conservative candidates whom you can trust to do what they say. no etch a sketch. written on your heart. [applause] governor romney says he will run as a conservative. i will not run as a conservative. i am a conservative. [cheers and applause] i ask for fellow conservatives

-- someone who understands the reagan coalition lives because it is not the reagan coalition. it is the founders' coalition. if you stand by that, if you stand by that, do not listen to the pundits. i bet you there are a lot of people out here to get frustrated when you elect members of congress or others and they go to washington and they say they will be a conservative and in order to pass a bill or two, they compromise. poll ratings are 10%. they're telling you the same thing. to compromise. they're telling you to give up your principles in order to win. how has that been working out for us? giving up our principles in order to win. do not do what you criticize

your elected officials of doing. stand up for what you know is right for america. stand up and vote your conscience because you know what, what you know is right for america is also a winning message for america. you do that and we will win. thank you very much. god bless you. ♪ >> rick santorum campaigning in wisconsin ahead of the primaries in wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia tomorrow. you can see primary results tomorrow here on c-span. our coverage begins at 7:00 eastern and you can join in the conversation by phone, facebook wore on twitter. we are going live now to hear what it is like to cover a war with war correspondents from the associated press, cbs, and that

"new york times." they are participating in the american society of newsletters and washington. the discussion is expected to begin momentarily. ho

>> hello, everybody. it welcome to our next session. i think it will be one of the most profound sessions we will have. i'd like to think reuters for putting together that wonderful tribute to the journalists to have fallen in the past year and foreign correspondents enough died in the past year. that was wonderful.

i am sorry to say that laura logan cannot be with us today. she had a sudden illness and her family and we wish them well. our moderator for "lives on the line, started her reporting career in memphis where she covered the death of elvis. that's hard to beat. as a reporter, she traveled in 50 companies, covering arms control, the persian gulf war in the middle east and became an editorial writer for "usa today" and then worked at the newseum. she edited "running toward danger" the book of reporters covering 9/11. three weeks ago, a heartbreaking photo of a young at syrian boy in anguish after his father was

shot by a sniper dominated the new york times, wall street journal, washington post, and other papers from the world. a few days later, the photographer who shot the photo wrote a gripping account of escaping from syria. explosions illuminated the night as we ran, hoping to escape syria. the government seems determined to keep the world from seeing it. tank shells slammed into the city streets. sniper bullets whizzed by our heads. we're all going to get killed, an activist told me. a native of argentina who has worked for the ap since 2003 covering the war in afghanistan and conflicts in the middle east and around the globe. christopher shivers is one of the outstanding reporters and writers of our time. a marine in the persian gulf

war, his work has been cited in to pulitzer prize efforts in "the new york times." that includes a national magazine award and the michael kelly award for the fearless pursuit an expression of the truth. his national magazine award was for the school, a description of the second worst terrorist attack ever by chechen rebels. the story was listed as one of the seven greatest stories ever published by the magazine. he also covered the worst terrorist attack ever, september 11, as a reporter based in lower manhattan, spending two weeks at ground zero virtually without sleep. his dispatches from iraq and afghanistan were selected as being among the decade's top 10 works of journalism.

tyler hicks was part of the times team that won the 2009 pulitzer and was named one of the decade's top 10 works of journalist. he has been named a news photographer of the year and has covered disasters in chechnya, iraq, libya and syria. he was with journalists as they were taken captive in libya by forces loyal to muammar gaddafi. their 21-year-old driver was killed. he was with him when he died in syria and wrote about what happened in "the times" saying they felt was essential to get into syria were 7000 people have been killed, largely out of world view. that is what we're here to talk about today. i would like to introduce the executive editor of the "new

york times." [applause] >> thanks so much. what you have been watching as you gathered in this room are the pictures of 14 journalists and colleagues who have been killed so far this year on top of a terrible 2011 where the number reached 46. this panel which includes two of my most esteemed colleagues from "the times" is here to discuss the fundamental questions of why we still go and why bearing witness to conflicts and more is indeed a calling for them and others who proudly call themselves the foreign correspondents.

tyler was with anthony, as many of you know, when he died. he was trying to cross the border from syria back to turkey and tyler was also with antony and two of our other colleagues about a year ago when they were taken captive the -- taken into captivity in libya. tyler has been a hero to many of his colleagues and never for a minute tried to save antony and brought him for -- brought him across the border to safety. he wrote a terrific piece about their trip to syria, the reporting part of that, which and the nea was incredibly excited about. for those of you who knew him,

he was irrepressible in his joy of being out, covering with his own eyes and ears the most important stories. friends described his pure joy when he finally got to tahrir square and told the editors at the time that the reporting trip to syria had been one of the best he had made. was made antony's special his fluency in arabic, his lyrical prose, his eye for detail, and his dedication for telling the stories of ordinary people caught by conflict instead of telling the stories of war through the eyes of political leaders and those waging the battle.

my predecessor and executive editor who hired anthony at the times said something quite true about him, which is if with the pds had a cinched -- if wikipedia had a single to entry, it would just have his name. he worked for his beloved "washington post" and his father told me that a distinct memory of his when i was chatting with him in beirut after that tragedy said he would wind up whenever prize was available and started doing this when he was 10 years old at bible camp. his new book is a gorgeous

meditation on the identity and the tug of family and covering war. he writes -- he is writing about his oklahoma city extended family and says "it is a big, sprawling clan, together even when it is apart. said journalists on this panel are very much part of the clan and i would like to think his words apply to journalism broadly as well. thank you. [applause] >> sometimes, when one is asked to moderate a panel, you worry about how i can fill the allotted time. in the case of this panel, i question was how can i get in all of these questions? i will just die in with my

questions but at any point, if you would like to ask a question, please feel free to do so. this is a free-for-all, so whatever you want to say. i hope everyone in this room and read your story about anthony's last day in assyria. you talked about how you spend months with him planning this trip and planning how to stay safe. can you talk about that? >> this type of trip, especially in the wake of what we have seen happen to our colleagues over just the past year, a lot of people were killed in syria and libya, people we have been very close to. it seems there was a lot of luck with journalists, considering

america has been involved in two wars over a decade and some major role -- some a journalist going and getting hurt along the way. but it has been concentrated in the last year and it made us focus differently on it. especially in our case, just one year before planning a trip, having been captured and nearly killed in libya, anthony and i took extra steps to make sure this trip would go smoothly. those were not just our own preparations but largely the contacts and to have inside syria where we made sure we were working with people who we could trust. this is not about just charging into a country, which is the worst thing you can do. there's a feeling it you have to be their first, but we did not feel that.

as he explained it to me, this is going to be a long war and it is only going to get worse. let's do this right and do it safely. that included taking a lot of precaution about which border we would cross and who we are crossing with and what contacts have worked with in the past? a lot of the things about these people and who theypeople and w, your life is in their hands. really, the local contact you were working with and make sure that you have the time line, which carry an emergency response to begin that tells the paper where we are at any given time, you push a button. we carry medical kits. unfortunately, at the very end of the trip, it was very

unexpected in a lot of ways. >> all of you are veterans of covering conflict, but chris, what advice do you give to editors sending somebody into a conflict for the first time? is there something they can do to prepare the reporter or the photographer for this kind of action? >> as part of your normal supervision, make sure that whoever you send has excellent judgment and someone that is in touch with you regularly. we were off satellite phones and sometimes only through e-mail. communication back and forth with the best means to be really rich and as constant as you can make it. i don't think you send someone who you don't think their judgment was solid, but there is a practical skill that everyone should have and far too few people have.

he should not send someone who has not had the basic trauma care training. it is essential. when you're traveling with the american military, most everyone around you have that training. it is likely there will be tourniquets and basic skills and knowledge available. in libya or syria, you'll be astonished at the number of people out there that don't have any skills. you have just minutes to save someone's life. the show can come in and you may have to work on them. that doesn't mean that you do vascular surgery, but you have to treat for shock, to a basic riyadh. it is very important that journalists have this fundamental set of skills. a friend of ours by the of the lead loaned -- a leg wound.

the friends were holding their hand, providing comfort but not first day. people were taken from that scene that were wounded less seriously than them by the only available,. -- available car. i am not saying this gentleman would have survived his wounds, they were severe. we know that the aid was not administered and the tree of wasn't followed. followed.wasn't it would be nice to know that they have that very basic skills that. l set. you can give them an at&t course. emt cours.

i think that is essential. >> b-picture that george mentioned on the front page of the new york times, the washington post, and others was syria and rebel soldiers grieving over some of their dead comrades. you wrote about your dangerous trip into syria, and he said it may not have been your best photography, but it told people a lot about what was going on in syria. is it important to take those kind of pictures as well as the ones that you think might be a prize winner? >> yes, when we were, we are never thinking that far. [inaudible]

that picture is more emotional. i would picture what is going on, also with the civilians. i think the risk is to show that, not only to show the fierce fighting. people are in the middle of that. they are suffering every day. [inaudible] he was living his normal life. i think it is important to show the daily life of the syrians right now.

it means a lot of amazing pictures, more dramatic. it was so dangerous sometimes, i was risking my life like every minute. we try to tell the story without being in the middle of the bombs. they were bombing from far away. if you are in that place, you are there. we had a camera guy with a lot of experience. i am trying to do my best in those places. he said, rodrigo, we can't be here now. it's too dangeorus.

rous. and here people that really know the weapons -- [inaudible] i have no idea what these weapons are. >> for the non-photographers, you also confronts major chaos. riots, a mass funeral, how do you focus on that one image whether it is in grieving or something that you think it tells the story. are you looking for that in particular? >> is one of the things i have observed through the years, watching other photographers that i have always admired. being in the scene, whether it is a funeral or a protest,

whatever it is. i would be shooting everything in every direction. i looked at the picture, and they completely -- they got this in beij amazing shot. i got all this garbage, these busy pictures. i think that this still isn't so much just going and photograph everything, but knowing what your looking for when you go into that situation and having the ability to focus and tune out. it is like hunting for birds. nothave to aim at aone, a flock. >> rodrigo? >> for me, it's really important to be calm in that situ ation.

when the situation is really a chaotic, you can start running everywhere without taking a picture. because you know what you're doing. you're trying to find a picture that illustrates the story. it is difficult. [inaudible] the situation was completely more dramatic and more chaotic than my pictures. you're calm, you have experience, you can deal with the emotions without drama, people crying, people running. it is difficult, but we try to live through >> and some members

of the military have trouble with adjustments when they come home. they have come from an area where driving down the block can be an imminent explosion, everybody carrying a backpack can be a suicide bomber. how do you go between the world that you cover and what we call the real world? >> i think about this a lot because i have five kids, my wife is here. i come back to a pretty busy life that is my real life. it is not my job. in a strange way, some of these places have been horrible weather is ground zero or the day to day in libya and afghanistan or iraq. it makes you appreciate your own good fortune.

you come to a place where you don't have to worry about your community. i don't resent that, i appreciate it. you try to get some perspective that you don't always succeed at it, because when you come back, your in your regular life. you can't really tried to superimpose one over the other and you have to leave the other one for your work situation. these guys were talking a minute ago that i would add, it might have to deal with the personality that does this year in and year out. close at the dark, five the tourniquets. they shared something that is very similar and i will air them

out. some of these guys, you might be the same type, you may have a little bit of perverse personality. when things are really good, they can be unmanageable. [laughter] and when things are really bad, you can be calm. i'm not saying that they don't feel fear, they do. if they tell you they don't, they are lying. but they manage it, they channel it, they concentrated and are very calm. they are bouncing around the inside of the tent because it's calm. when they are out there in the middle of that, i work side-by- side with photographers, i work from the field. it can be so busy and intense that is very self-organizing.

you are not in those sorts of situations when your home. when you get stuck in traffic, you are just a guy stuck in traffic. it is not so bad. >> i agree. i agree with chris a lot, you have to be able to separate as best you can what you do in the field that what you have at home. people manage that in different ways, they have different ways of coping with the stress being in the field. i heard about this with journalists at with veterans. -- and with veterans. you can see it in the field, the stress, the anchor, the fighting, all of these things that can happen.

i think chris and i both have very good ways of managing those two things. what has happened to me in the last year, this past year has been the worst year of my entire life. captured in libya, lost a very good friend in syria, i had to witness his death. and worse than that, seeing how badly it affected so many people, his family, friends, a widow, his son, his daughter. it is one thing to see something in the field, but there were these long-lasting things that really need attention.

whether it is a correspondent for photographer, they think you need to be very sensitive to the level that they are coping with. it very well may not be on the surface, i know that the paper is always offering help. somebody to talk to, and the thing. you don't even always think to ask for it yourself. he sure that you offer it to people, even if they don't think it was that bad, it is really important. >> this really affects the families. i remember when he stepped on a mine a few years ago. how is he doing, is he going to make it?

there is sort of this expanding and blossom in conversation. -- and blossoming conversation. he was 2 years old in the back seat of my pickup truck, i took the additional call. he can only hear one side but he consents by distress. what did your friend is that bonn -- step on? there were times that i was coming home, and he'd look at me and say, how come you're not hurt? what my wife goes through and my kids go through what i have no away, it makes you feel like you have to worry

about your universe. not just how he is doing in this room. -- in the newsroom. you can get your way around the pain of that. a little bit. but take a good look at the families, this is a real burden. it is like what the soldiers go through or the victims that are caught up. they may not be right there seeing it, but they are living it. they can sense things we are not saying when we come home. >> you have a different circumstance that you don't cover conflict all the time. you might be taking pictures with a box camera that you found in afghanistan one day. coveringou deal with

peaceful topics and then going back to war? >> i live in central america, a mexico.ver haiti, they are not easy countries, but it is not open war like libya. but i think that i don't know if i can go and do this like six months a year or nine months a year covering wars. early, i am more fresh going to these places. coming back, i am doing a project about by and women -- mayan women. i don't know any other story. when i go to pakistan, it's in a different way. not always the world.

so i am not tired. i am never tired of going because i spent the early part of the year doing trips, and a normal life. other stories. that is good. my mother says all the time, why are you not going to the olympics? why haiti? [laughter] talking about family, they don't really understand why you go to afghanistan. i think it is important to do it. a good thing working for --

[inaudible] you are not just working for one newspaper, you are working for all of them. sometimes our pitchers are published everywhere. to is important to do it, d do mixed stories. if i work hard and latin america, nobody cares. >> chris, you are a bit of a hybrid. before you were a journalist, you were a marine. as you cover the marines as a journalist, but you find that they help or a hindrance --do you find that a help or a hindrance? do you tell people up front that you were in the marines, or do you wait and see what the situation is? >> i don't have a choice with

that anymore, before you show up, they know a lot about you and they have read what you have done. at this point, there is no lowballing that. mostly it helps. helps a lot. there are things that got drilled in the by dna what i was young that you can't get rid of what i was youngdna that you can't get rid of. but what i am walking patrol, i am hyper vigilant. i usually set of the patrol order beforehand, i can sometimes anticipate things that are happening before they happen. it puts you in the right place and keep you safe, and it helps me make a good risk assessment about whether i wanted to this particular patrol. i will shoulder risk for

readers, but i will just go out there and what the patrol because i want to. there has to be a reason or a pursuit. you have to come back inside the wire, as they say. but sometimes, it hurts. i will give you an example. there was a patrol the i was on, it has happened a few times, where your state of knowledge is high. you come to a point where the patrol is not behaving the way they you think it should be . in one case, a patrol was taking the left just short of the canal and i thought that they should scoot over the bridge. i thought there was a building over there that was dangerous. i wanted to be on their side of the canals of that you can sweep the building.

there was a boat in the canal, i knew it was he. if we end up in the canal, we will drown today. but i did not say anything, it is not my job. you're not there to take over the patrol. if someone gets hurt, from that minute forward, you own that casualties. you have to be quiet on patrol. the tyler and i were a lot of patrol a couple weeks ago, and they were bunched up. these kids have never been shot at. you know when you are moving with a group that has had a lot of combat, of this particular day, i decided not to say anything. i almost said, you might want to scoot over to that side of the bridge. we got shot at from the

building, got shot through the spine. not like i was withholding information from the patrol, i just had a hunch. every time you have a hunch, you can't interfere with the patrol. but this is where it hurts. i think about the patrol, i will say every day, but every week. -- won't say every day, but every week. >> the navy is conducting a study in the military troops that they sometimes get a sixth sense foor spidey sense for danger that's imminent. does this come from experience? >> i think that comes from experience in the sense that specifically, if you talk about

control and afghanistan, you can feel when something is going to happen. that often comes from experience. when you send people out, they are going with trained soldiers and marines, they watch them. they do what they do and follow their movements. that is something that i have always tried to keep in mind. if something happens unexpectedly, the most unusual and unexpected thing usually happens. because, as chris was saying, you are attached to that.

if you suddenly go running off in the other direction, they will have to go and get you. you have to go where they go, sometimes it is not where you want to go. sometimes they want to go right into the fight. there are certain courses offering training for these kind of things. the real field experience, that is why is important. about to jump into the big and complex right away, to start off with lower level complex and at least get some of that experience and awareness about how these things work. >> a lower level conflict that i covered was a vote of rest. i was with -- was civil unrest.

i smelled something, it was embers in my hair. i said to the photographer, they pay you to get close, they paid me to get the story. so i went to talk to the fire fighters. how much is too much? when does a good picture take over from saving your hide? >> reporters, we need to be there. very near, sometimes. that is more risky. but you're asking when we feel it's really dangerou. s. in syria, days before the army launched a big attack.

they were very concerned about not showing their face, they want to cover their faces. it was dangerous, but calm. they forgot about you. i took all the pictures. you feel the danger there because they were quiet and running. you can feel at that moment, things are really getting closer. sometimes you understand the danger when you see faces of people that you're trying to photograph. in their terms, you can see it in their face.

>> is it hard to stop shooting at times? >> it is. but with experience, you learn to stop. i have done incredibly stupid things in my life, and i have been lucky. there is something to be said for this element of competition in the field. it can be very dangerous. and you have a certain number of people that want to go back. when jim and chris were killed, chri was was a very old friend f mine. we'd known him for years. he was done for the day. they got hard-core pictures of fighting that day. he talked to his fiancee on the

phone, we might just wandered out to the port. -- wander down to the port. other photographers wanted to go back and wanted to get a picture. this group mentality takes over. what if they go and they get something? he jumps in the truck and get killed in our later. -- gets killed an hour later. not having the pressure from your editors, so and so got this picture and you didn't. anyone in those places, it is really dangerous and sometimes it is not as clear from the home base. if you see a picture of a guy firing a gun, getting to that place was probably 10 times more dangerous.

you never know where rock is going to hit. the arabs spring continues to go on. it is important to not have the pressure to have that picture or story because somebody else has it. the stakes are too high right now. >> chris, what are your thoughts about risk assessment of your choosing whether or not to go into an area to get a particular story. >> you think you can understand the readers with your day, you pursue your day that way. i will give you an example.

trusting your people in the field. i will give you a really good example. ae were rolling all thday, classic afghan fire fight with his platoon was pushing to miles beyond where they were normally going. there were probably five or six working a platoon. they would shoot at them, everyone would scatter into buildings and collar around. -- crawl around. kids would come out and beat the sheep out of the way and the firefight would start again.

a guy got shot. it was an important time in may of 2010. there were 20,000 marines in this province, it was going to be about fighting season. -- a bad fighting season. we knew some of these guys, we had that in firefights earlier in the year. -- or we had that in firefights earlier in the year. been in firefights earlier in the year. there were usual questions like timing, and i have been killed, we wanted to take pictures of -- and we guy had been killed

wanted to take pictures of his memorial. if we walk into the wire, there was another patrol out. here is a tree-lined, we both felt the urge to be out there on the patrol. look at the pictures on the disk. we are looking at this thing like it is our job to be here. we haven't even violent what we got. i think there is a value going down there. if we are going to get her, the guy who doesn't get hurt needs

to be able to tell the family is whies why. if we go out on the patrol, what do we tell the paper ha? ? what do i tell bill. ? that is a really important matrix. there is journalism at other things going into it. the photographers are out there working the dotted line. you have to trust them to know when to back out. it would also have been a distract them. -- a been a distraction. we are going through this calculus every day out there. i don't need to go up to that

intersection of because i know what is up there and i may not come back. >> sometimes, i am the kind of guy that says, we need to go. dodge that is what we were going through that night, we were sitting there. it is like a light show at sunset, only a few field the way, a quick walk. we say we are out a lot, we are. when you run a good marine unit or a good army units, those guys have been living in a year at a time. they are very relaxed about it. you can fall into that state of mind. and you have constant checks and balances to pull themselves back. it becomes more manageable.

you have the managers of even more intensely. -- you have to manage yourself even more intensely. >> from the news room, photographing, sometimes you have to wait to blog. does it make you a better photographer to have that constant pressure to produce, or does it get in the way of doing a more in-depth job? >> a tweet, facebook post or blog is as good as the content. if this is good, it makes you better, if it is garbage, it is a waste of time. only sundays does that sparkle. i think that we obsess of little too much of the tools make you better or not.

we have the tools, but if we are going to do with, it needs to be good. nobody wants to be the boring newspaper like nobody wants to read a boring tweet. >> multimedia content is more -- four still photographers to shoot a video, write something, it gets too much. you have to know your limits. i don't do a lot of that kind of stuff. you can kind of keep your bare drop -- to your bare job. if some people can split up their skills more, i am not great at standing out. >> the moment, you have

seconds to take a picture. you don't have 10 or 20 different moments. you have two or three moments in a day. [inaudible] not in a perfect way, but the best way possible. it is difficult. for me, i never received any pressure. the pressure is at least mine. i want to show the story in the best way. i want to go again and again. and sometimes these guys stop

you. tyler, you were once interviewed by chris. he asked you how it has changed you personally, smoking, drinking, exercise? >> chris exposed a lot of my history on that one. the probably took it easy on me. if you are going out into place, you have to be healthy. you have to be able to stay up with -- i am 42 years old, you go out on patrol with these guys that are between 18 and 25 years old. you have to be able to keep up with these guys. sometimes it is straight of

about 10 or having to run 300 meters. -- straight up a mountain or having to run 300 meters. there are no -- chris and i both run, go to the gym. we hope that the young guys around us smoke a lot and have slowed themselves out as much as possible. it has changed me a lot, and not just the physical stuff. but the way that you value life, friends get hurt, get killed, you learn to value life more. every time i go home, i spent time with my parents, my friends.

you really appreciate what you have, especially how people are living. libya and syria this year, the way that people live there are atrocious. i think, i am really lucky. your physical mental health are the of important things that you have. mythu just debunekked the of the hard drinking, hard smoking war correspondent. >> i had my sleeping bag, soldiers were helping me. now i have becomed more discipline. d.

i have the correct box, and i'm not bothering anybody. i can work myself. also, i have to be fit. if you have to walk of 40 degrees, and you can't do it, are you killed in syria or the soldiers in afghanistan? you have a no-losing perspective. [inaudible] i'm thinking that things can be really worse. this is not so bad.

>> i think you said that it was important not just for your well-being but the people that you are with that you are fit. so that you don't put anyone else in danger. >> if someone has to divert their resources, time, and attention to help you, and something happens on that control, you are accountable for that. you represent the industry, your newspaper, your wire service, magazine, a network. you have to make the impression of being a serious human being. whether it is libya and rebels or syria rebels or chechnyan gunmen, you had better be able to make it. you better not slow them down or need help. if you get hurt, you are part of

it and you will get the hell, but you better not need attention because you can't keep up. i wondered whether i would get out of this beat. i often think, the first patrol i lag on will be the day that i stopped, or if i get hurt. i don't think i could face myself if i knew that i slowed a patrol down. if you go out there like tyler said, you have to have life habits. au can't say i'm going on six-hour patrol today. you don't know when you're coming back. things are going on and on.

you have to be a bill tohang -- be able to hang. >> like a few days, one week. we're sitting in syria, we went meters.ght 40 if you're not fit, you're risking yourself and the group. it can be danger not only for your life, but for all of it. >> i know that there must be some questions. do we have a microphone here? >> i guess this is a question of rod fourrigo mo -- of rodrigo mostly. some newspapers ran the name of the boy and his father's name,

some did not. just describing it in general terms. i wonder if you can speak to those kinds of specifics and whether you think they are important, and whether they are important in humanizing the situation. and whether that matters. >> each situation is completely different. because you write the name of the person whose picture is going to risk their lives, you don't do it. there were examples and syria, it was there phase at their names. you have to respect that. you always have to respect that.

if somebody reads my name, they are going to kill me. if someone looks at my picture, they will kill my relatives. you have to respect people you're taking pictures of. professionalnly a thing, it is a human thing. in terms of that picture, i don't think there were any problems riding the name of the little boy -- writing the name of the little boy. i don't think it was a problem. >> [inaudible] >> there are cases where if you do it, even if you think it is correct, you are really

putting into real danger the life of that person. >> we withhold names all the time if we think that lives are in jeopardy. it is not every day, but it is not uncommon. there was an informant in forming against the president of chechnya. we waited until they got their family members out of chechnya and out of russia. a lot of times, you have to look to your conscience, not just that your -- at your scoop. >> yes, sir. >> i'm the former editor of the austin american statesman. you talk about battle coverage very appropriately. my question is more toward the broad, overarching story of what

this means, how and why of the story. it seems to me that you do that much more, summing up the pathway of a nation and its battle. cultural shifts, strategic issues that are pretty hard to pin down. you are doing that story amid chaos. you only have one or two or three sets of ties rather than vast platoons of reporters or photographers. your resources can be good sources, but they can be bad, too. how different is it coming up with the howl and why story -- story? shywhy when do you know that you have it?

when you come to grips with that? >> when you talk about the pathway of the nation, do you talk about the nation's in which we are working or this nation? >> [inaudible] >> i would like to pop the balloon here. we talk about what we do as if it is fascinating and important. it is a smaller part of a much larger enterprise. we cover field hospitals, rebels, front lines, or live back from the front, how it is affected. the way that you cover a war is not just to go to the frontline. you have to go to the cemetery, the mosque, the church, the congress, tracking what

candidates are saying. you have to have reporters on both sides of that point to the extent it is possible. it's not really possible with the taliban at this point. i don't think that i have to write a story that defied the decade of war. i don't take that as possible. i think i would look back on it and laugh at. everybody's work fits in with everybody else's. you make this great big mosaic. some days i have to back up and provide some of the more broader views. sometimes the editors asked for it, sometimes i feel it in my bones. you get a point of view. about a lot of things.

sometimes it finds its way into my copy. sometimes it is a magazine piece. but i try to keep in perspective. i don't think that at the end of my career, my body of work is going to tell you that much. i hope it will answer the question you said. the fenceswing for every day. >> [inaudible] >> it tells a big story, thank you. but it doesn't tell the entire story. i rely on those that do things differently. i am really glad that there are people that do it well. i remember in the marine corps, i was committed to it. how does eric schmidt know

things about the marine corps that i don't know. it was really good, it was really true. i was in that culture, and he was adding to my understanding of it. if you have a good picture or a good story, you can increase the reader's understanding a notch, that's great. three notches is incredible. re-order the world with one story, i can't do that. >> bill with usa today. the lead story in the times this morning is the u.s. joint effort to equip and pay rebels in syria. based on your time and experience, what is the nature and capability of this opposition that america is now supporting? >> having spent a good amount of

time in libya at the beginning of that conflict, something i can say about the abilities, something that i touched dodd and the article that i wrote for the paper -- touched on in the article that i wrote for the paper. you have defectors from th e syrian army. they are small in number, but they are skilled, military people. it may not look different from a bunch of guys with weapons running around the field. when you were there, the organization and skills that is much higher -- and skill set is much higher. when they get money and weapons, which is what i have heard that

they are about to get, it is not going to make their ability a lot higher, but it will cause a much bigger flood of defections. i think that they will have an impact. and reflecting what anthony said, the hour before he died, i was standing next to him when the people that were helping us did a little interview, you are about to head to the borders with sunset. this is actually the last question that anyone asked him . do you think that we will be successful? do you think we will win this war? he said, i do. i think you will be successful,

but it will take a very long time. >> i think it is fitting that we and with anthony's last words. i appreciate the service that you do, i value the work that you do, and i thank you for your generous donation of time today. [applause] hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you again, very much, for that. a reminder as we were watching the panel, occasionally i write about a free press or the role of journalists.

we know that we make mistakes and at times, we deserve criticism. that sometimes people are mouthing the of knowing reputation. the next time i get one of those people on the line, i will play them this day and tell them what a journalist does. we will take a brief 3 minute or four minute break. we will come back in a salute some of the best of the profession. join us in just a few moments, please. >> we will have more from this three-day american society of news editors' conference tomorrow. president obama is giving a keynote address about the 2013

federal budget proposal and how is different from the republican plan that passed the house last week. we will have the president live at 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c- span. yet today, the president boasted a north american summit with mexican president calderon and stephen harper. we will show you the remarks from the white house at about 25 minutes. and also at primetime tonight at about 8:00 eastern. tomorrow is primary day in wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia. c-span will have election night coverage with results from your reactions. we will also take up some of the coverage of the contest that begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you can also watch of law c- span.org @ -- online at c- span.org and c-span